Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BRITISH TRANSPORT DOCKS BILL (By Order)

Consideration, as amended, deferred till Tuesday next.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY

Careers Office, West Hartlepool

Commander Kerans: asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty how many applicants there were to the Careers Office, Royal Navy, at West Hartlepool, in 1963; and how many of these finally entered the Royal Navy or Royal Marines.

The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. John Hay): Five hundred and thirty-seven and 210 respectively.

Commander Kerans: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving those figures. Can he increase the advertising in the north-east area? This careers office serves a very wide area in the North and very few people know that it exists in West Hartlepool. Will he do all he can to advertise its existence in the area?

Mr. Hay: Yes. Any advertising for recruiting purposes is directed to local areas through the media of local newspapers. I do not know about the careers office in West Hartlepool, but I will certainly see if anything can be done to improve the situation there.

Mr. Willis: Is there still a plentiful supply of men offering themselves for the Royal Marines?

Mr. Hay: Yes.

H.M. Ships (Sale)

Mr. Whigfield Digby: asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty which of Her Majesty's ships, by class, were disposed of by sale commercially in 1963–64.

Mr. Hay: Twenty-nine to date. This number is made up of one destroyer, four frigates four ocean minesweepers, five fast patrol boats, four submarines, six boom defence vessels, two trawlers, one ocean tug and two mooring vessels.
With permission I will publish the list of these ships in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Digby: Before authorising further sales, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the importance of maintaining the size of the conventional fleet, particularly in view of the fact that it is now Opposition policy to offer it unsolicited and place it at the disposal of the United Nations?

Mr. Hay: As I said during the debate on the Navy Estimates, it is our intention to see that the size of the conventional fleet is commensurate with our responsibilities. Of course, I cannot guarantee what the position would be in future, but I do not regard the suggestion try hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Wingfield Digby) mentioned with any more favour than, I should think, the Navy does.

Mr. Shinwell: Does not the Civil Lord understand that nobody has made any such suggestion that we should hand over the Navy either to the United Nations or to any other Government? Will he bear in mind that the Government have assigned or intend to assign the V-bombers to N.A.T.O. and that there are 55,000 British troops in Europe under the command of a German general? A Labour Government—as indeed, would any other Government—would retain absolute control over the Navy.

Mr. Hay: I certainly take note of what the right hon. Gentleman says and I am sure that we will all welcome the return of the Leader of the Opposition so that we can put a few pertinent questions to him.

The following is the information:

H.M. Ships disposed of by sale commercially as "runners" in 1963–64:


3
Fast Patrol Boats—H.M. Ships "Gay Carabineer", "Gay Bombadier", "Gay Cavalier".

3
Boom Defence Vessels—H.M. Ships "Barsound", "Bardolf", "Barrier".


1
Mooring Vessel—H.M.S. "Moorfly".

H.M. Ships disposed of by sale commercially for "scrap" in 1963–64:


1
Destroyer—H. M.S. "Childers".


4
Frigates—H.M. Ships "Loch More", Loch Tralaig", "Tompazis", "Loch Craggie".


4
Ocean Minesweepers—H.M. Ships "Cockatrice", "Tanganyika", "Alba-core", "Cheerful".


2
Trawlers—H.M. Ships "Rosaline", "Tahay".


3
Boom Defence Vessels—H.M. Ships "Barrhead", "Barkis", "Barbette".


1
 Mooring Vessel—H.M.S. "Moorgrieve".


2
Fast Patrol Boats—H.M. Ships "Gay Archer", "Gay Bowman".


4
Submarines—H.M. Submarines "Spiteful", "Tudor", "Tactician", "Trenchant".


1
Ocean Tug—H.M.T. "Enforcer".

Admirals of the Fleet

Mr. H. Hynd: asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty which Admirals of the Fleet are on active duty; and what emoluments and services are provided for those who are non-active.

Mr. Hay: Admiral of the Fleet the Earl Mountbatten of Burma, Chief of the Defence Staff, is the only officer of his rank on active duty. For other Admirals of the Fleet, half pay is provided. When they perform specific duties, services are given appropriate to their rank.

Mr. Hynd: How many non-active Admirals of the Fleet are there, and are they really necessary?

Mr. Hay: There are nine Admirals of the Fleet, who are retired and on half pay. Whether they are really necessary is a difficult question to answer. They are individuals who have rendered distinguished service and therefore have the right to go on being called Admiral of the Fleet and to receive half pay.

Naval Reserves and Cadets

Commander Courtney: asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty why no mention of naval reserve and cadet organisations appears in the naval section of the Statement on Defence, 1964.

Mr. Hay: Practice varies from year to year according to the space available. The fact that no mention of naval reserves and cadets was made in the Statement on Defence is of course no reflection on the importance we attach to them.
A comprehensive statement on Royal Naval Reserves and Cadet Forces is given in Appendix III of the Defence (Navy) Estimates, 1964–65.

Commander Courtney: Would not my hon. Friend agree that in a year which heralds a considerable future expansion in Her Majesty's Navy it is desirable to place even more emphasis than usual on the reserves and particularly on cadet forces? Secondly, in view of the shortage of Fleet Air Arm flying personnel, to which he has drawn attention, will he consider having an air branch of the naval side of the cadet organisation?

Mr. Hay: I agree with my hon. and gallant Friend that we need to place a good deal of emphasis on the cadet side of our affairs. I should like to consider his suggestion and perhaps have a word with him about it.

Ratings (Re-engagement)

Commander Courtney: asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty what is the estimated minimum re-engagement rate for naval ratings completing nine-year engagements which can be accepted in relation to the fleet manning programme after 1965.

Mr. Hay: Re-engagement is only one of the factors which determine the strength of the Fleet, and must be considered together with other important factors such as recruitment and wastage. I cannot therefore say that there is any special rate below which re-engagement should not fall.

Commander Courtney: Is not the present rate of re-engagement sagging rather noticeably, and does not this have a rather menacing effect on the future strength of the Navy? Observing that perhaps three-quarters of the Royal Navy is now east of Suez, is not re-engagement likely to slow down still further because of the arduous conditions of service to which the bulk of officers and men are now subjected?

Mr. Hay: As I said in the debate on Monday, one does not want to exaggerate this problem. The present rate of re-engagement in the Navy is high and we must continue to keep it high. To the best of my knowledge, there is no reason to expect that re-engagement will suffer to any great extent as a consequence of a large proportion of the Fleet being east of Suez.

Mr. Willis: Nobody would wish to exaggerate this, but in view of its undoubted importance would the hon. Gentleman state the present strength of nine-year men? The White Paper gives the figure only for twelve-year men.

Mr. Hay: I cannot give figures or percentages like that without seeing a Question on the Order Paper, for the simple reason that different re-engagement rates apply.

Welsh Ports (Visits)

Mr. Gower: asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty (1) which of Her Majesty's ships will visit Welsh ports this year; and if he will give particulars of the ships and their complements;
(2) which of Her Majesty's ships will visit the port of Barry this year; on what dates such visits are proposed; and if he will give particulars of the ships and their complements.

Mr. Hay: On present plans, and subject to overriding operational commitments, it is intended that 13 of Her Majesty's Ships will visit Welsh ports this year. I will circulate the names of the ships and their complements in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
Apart from the fact that Her Majesty's Ship "Urchin" will be visiting Port Talbot from 17th–20th of this month, I regret that I am unable at present to say which other ports will be visited and whether Barry will be included. The local authorities concerned have not yet been consulted.

Mr. Gower: Will my hon. Friend take note that in one or two previous years Barry has been omitted for some reason and that I hope that that can be rectified this year, as the people of the town are most anxious that a ship should visit the port?

Mr. Hay: I can give my hon. Friend the assurance for which he has asked.

Mr. Reynolds: The hon. Gentleman will remember that when I complained about the small number of ships in the Mediterranean he asked me whom we were going to fight. Whom are we going to fight in the Welsh ports? I realise, of course, that these visits are welcome by both English and Welsh ports. Will the hon. Gentleman publish a full list of visits, not only to Welsh ports but to other ports in the United Kingdom, for the next 12 months?

Mr. Hay: The first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question was answered by the second. I will consider the third.

Mr. Callaghan: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that although we are always glad to see R.N. ships in Welsh ports, we would prefer to have some more naval ships for refitting purposes rather than ceremonial visits?

Mr. Hay: But the hon. Gentleman will realise that we already have some very big naval dockyards where most of our refitting work is done.

The following is the information:


Name and Type of Ship
Complement


Officers
Ratings


HARDY OR RUSSEL (Frigate).
7
124


2 Ships of Dartmouth Training Squadron (Frigates).
About 15
About 200


URCHIN (Frigate)
7
83


RHYL (Frigate)
8
195


WAKEFUL (Frigate)
7
136


RAMPART (Tank Landing Craft).
3
33


AUROCHS (Submarine)
5
58


TIPTOE (Submarine)
6
59


ODIN (Submarine)
6
62


TRUNCHEON (Submarine)
6
59


ALARIC (Submarine)
5
57


ASTUTE (Submarine)
5
57

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY

Ordnance Factories, Leeds and Nottingham (Housing Accommodation)

Mr. Turner: asked the Secretary of State for War what discussions his Department has had with the local authorities at Leeds and Nottingham regarding the provision of housing for employees of the Royal Ordnance


Factory, Woolwich, accepting employment at the Royal ordnance factories in these two cities.

Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. Peter Kirk): The War Department has had exploratory discussions with the local authorities at Leeds and Nottingham, which are sympathetic but have long waiting lists for council houses. They will, however, allow exchanges between tenants of local authorities now in the Woolwich area and others now in Leeds or Nottingham. There are also possibilities of housing, sponsored by the local authorities, at unsubsidised rents. Discussions with the local authorities will be resumed when we know how many workers wish to transfer.

Mr. Turner: Does my hon. Friend realise that there are many redundant employees at the R.O.F., Woolwich, who are very anxious to remain in Government service and who are prepared to go to Leeds or elsewhere but who have a council house now and cannot get another if they move to a new area? Will he have another look at this matter to see whether there is a way in which to assist these people, who have been in Government service for a long time, to purchase a house?

Mr. Kirk: We cannot give capital assistance, but legal and other expenses or house purchase are reimbursed within certain limits and excess rent allowance may also be payable. We do not yet know the size of the problem and when we do we will get in touch with the local authorities again.

Fitters

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the Secretary of State for War what was the intake of trained civilian fitters last year; and how many were trained in the same period by War Department apprenticeship schemes.

Mr. Kirk: 350 and 71 respectively.

Mr. Digby: Is my hon. Friend aware that I am receiving complaints from my constituency that these trained men are being attracted away by the War Department which is not training sufficient itself to replace them?

Mr. Kirk: We are training one apprentice to every eight craftsmen, which seems to us a reasonbly satisfactory performance. I do not think that we can be attracting too many trained men away, because we have only the R.E.M.E. workshop at Bovington and there are only 24 apprentices there.

Glen Parva Barracks Site, Wigston

Mr. Farr: asked the Secretary of State for War what proportion of the Glen Parva Barracks site at Wigston is needed for War Office use; and if the remainder will now be released for other public use.

Mr. Kirk: About a fifth of the barrack site is required for continued military use: the remainder is being offered to other Government Departments but, if no bids are received, the normal process of disposal will be followed.

Mr. Farr: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Will he remind other Government Departments when offering the site of the desirability of decentralisation from Whitehall?

Mr. Kirk: Yes, Sir.

Field Marshals

Mr. H. Hynd: asked the Secretary of State for War which field marshals are on active duty; and what emoluments and services are provided for those who are non-active.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. James Ramsden): At present there are no field marshals serving on active duty Excluding the four Royal field marshals, the remaining eight who are not actively employed receive "half-pay" which is currently £3,300 a year. They are not entitled to other emoluments or services, except when they perform specific duties when they receive services appropriate to their rank.

Mr. Hynd: How does the right hon. Gentleman justify paying this large salary to the Maharajah of Nepal, for example? Does this mean that there are two people who are receiving half pay for each of the three Services and that one is receiving half pay for two of the Services? That does not seem to make sense.

Mr. Ramsden: I included His Majesty the King of Nepal in my reference to the Royal field marshals who do not draw any pay.

Mr. W. Hamilton: Why should they?

Mr. Ramsden: I should have thought that the rank of field marshal was one which the country was glad to see awarded to those who had given distinguished military service.

Mr. Hynd: May I say how glad I am to hear that the Royal field marshals and the King of Nepal are not included on the pay list? That clears up the matter I had in mind.

Sir C. Osborne: Will my right hon. Friend reject this insidious suggestion by the Opposition that ex-Service men, no matter what their rank, should be deprived of the pensions which they have properly earned?

Brocks Crystal Palace Fireworks Ltd.

Mr. Tomney: asked the Secretary of State for War what contracts have been awarded by his Department to Messrs. Brocks Crystal Palace Fireworks Ltd.

Mr. Kirk: Two contracts have been placed with this firm since November, 1959, when the responsibility for the purchase of pyrotechnics was taken over from the former Ministry of Supply.

Mr. Tomney: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply. Is he aware of the deplorable working conditions and wages paid by this company, especially to young workers who in this part of Norfolk have difficulty obtaining employment elsewhere? Is he aware that these workers work long hours and are represented by the National Union of General and Municipal Workers, but that the management has consistently refused to discuss these matters? In view of the fair wages clause which operates in all Government contracts, will the hon. Gentleman consult other Service Ministers to see what methods will be used in future in the placing of contracts with this company?

Mr. Kirk: This company is one of a number asked to tender. It has had two contracts since 1959, but I will look into the point about the fair wages

clause which the hon. Gentleman has mentioned.

Former National Service Men

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Secretary of State for War (1) how many former National Service men now on the Reserve have, within the last three months, received railway warrants, travel instructions and notification that they are preposted to certain units in the event of their units being recalled; and what is the purpose of these notices;
(2) why certain former conscripts who completed their service more than 31 years ago are now receiving railway warrants, cash vouchers for 10s. and reservists instruction books.

Mr. Kirk: It is not possible in the time available, and without a great deal of effort, to state how many former National Service men have received such instructions in the last three months. The purpose of these notices is to instruct Reservists what they are to do in the event of mobilisation.
The issue of these instructions is a continuous process made necessary by the need to provide replacements of pre-posted Reservists when individuals cease to be liable. There has been an increase in activity in this field as a result of the passage of the Navy, Army and Air Force Reserves Act, 1964, which released some 800,000 men from liability, of which a number was preposted.

Mr. Allaun: Does the Government's denial of any intention to recall these men hold good? If so, why send them these notices? Is the Under-Secretary aware that many former conscripts received these notices not when they had completed their service but in the last few weeks, and that this fact has greatly upset them, especially when they have young wives, or live with their parents, and especially since there is no mention on the notice that it is a purely precautionary measure? Will the Government look into this question again?

Mr. Kirk: I hope that what I have said makes it plain that this is a purely routine and precautionary measure, and has nothing to do with the present military situation overseas.

Mr. Paget: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us, in round figures, how many


Reservists at any one time are equipped with warrants and instructions, so that they can be made immediately available?

Mr. Kirk: I should require notice of that question.

Royal Ordnance Factories

Mr. McCann: asked the Secretary of State for War if he will allow Royal Ordnance factories to tender in open competition with private firms for articles which they are equipped to produce.

Mr. Kirk: Yes, Sir, where this is appropriate. But the bulk of orders of this kind is, in accordance with the preferred source policy, allocated to the Royal Ordnance factories without private firms being invited to tender.

Mr. McCann: Is the Minister aware that an order for rocket motor tubes has been transferred from the Royal Ordnance Factory at Patricroft, to Bristol Aerojet Ltd., in spite of the fact that both management and men at Patricroft are convinced that they were doing the job more cheaply? How does he line this fact up with the point about a preferred source of supply, and justify this action?

Mr. Kirk: I am aware of this point. This was a decision made by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Aviation. He is responsible, and not I. But the reason for the decision was explained in the reply which my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aviation made to the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. C. Royle) on 15th January of this year.

Mr. McCann: That reply said that the reason was that Bristol Aerojet Ltd. was doing research and development work as well. Is the Minister aware that the R.P.E. at Westcott and I.M.I. at Kidderminster are also engaged in the same kind of research and development work as Bristol Aerojet Ltd. Could not they have worked in conjunction with the R.O.F. Patricroft so that we could have got a real bargain for the country?

Mr. Kirk: That may be so, but this is a matter for the Minister of Aviation, and not for me.

Recruiting, Scotland

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for War what is the reason for the decline in recruiting for the Army in Scotland.

Mr. Ramsden: Although the number of recruits from Scotland fell between 1962 and 1963, the decline was slightly less than the average for all areas.
In the first eight weeks of 1964, 361 recruits were enlisted in Scotland compared with 371 for the same period in 1963.

Mr. Hughes: Can the Minister explain the trend in recruiting in Perthshire, which is represented by the Prime Minister? Is he aware that after the Prime Minister had made 50 speeches in his constituency the number of recruits was halved, and that in January only four enlisted? Does this mean that the Prime Minister has become the independent recruiting deterrent? How does the right hon. Gentleman explain the situation in the constituency of the Secretary of State for Scotland, where nil recruits were obtained? Is this due to the presence of the Polaris base in Holy Loch, or to the people of Argyllshire trusting to Providence and Providence being handicapped by the Secretary of State?

Mr. Ramsden: My original Answer shows the dangers of hon. Members attempting to generalise from one or two examples in Scotland. I would refer the hon. Member and his generalisations to the fact that the whole trend in Scotland is satisfactory. I had hoped that now that the hon. Member has finished one book about one Prime Minister he would have had more time in which to devote himself to helping us with recruiting, in which he has been so successful in the past.

Mr. Hughes: On a point of Order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I hope to raise the matter at the earliest possible moment in the debate on the Army Estimates.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Oyster Fisheries

Mr. Brewis: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what encouragement he is giving to commercial oyster fisheries in Scotland.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mir. J. A. Stodart): Research into the breeding and rearing of oysters off the west coast of Scotland has been carried out by scientists of the Scottish Marine Biological Association, which is grant aided from public funds. Largely as a result the former commercial oyster fishery at Loch Sween has been revived in recent years, and interest is being shown in the commercial development of two other areas where there were commercial fisheries in the past.

Mr. Brewis: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, but can he help further by removing one anomaly, as a result of which salmon fishings are not rated whereas commercial oyster fishings are?

Mr. Stodart: What my hon. Friend says is true, as a result of rerating which took place in 1958. As he will realise, a review of the rating system is to be under-taken in the not distant future. Perhaps that would be an appropriate time for him to raise the matter.

Mr. Woodburn: In connection with the experiment of keeping the oysters in the oyster beds, has there been any attempt to investigate the possibility of undertaking simultaneous experiments to breed pearls in these oysters, with a view producing a greater quantity of Scottish pearls?

Mr. Stodart: I cannot answer that question without notice, but such is the attraction of the possibility that I shall certainly draw this proposal to the attention of the research association.

Children (Special Schools)

Mr. Hannan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many children are attending special schools in accordance with section 32(4) of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1962.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lady Tweedsmuir): At January, 1963, the latest date for which figures are available, there were 10,549 children attending special schools. Of these, 1,135 were aged 15 and a further 74 were aged 16 or over.

Mr. Hannan: Does not the Under-Secretary agree that, since these children are compulsorily required to attend school until they reach the age of 16,

they are being educated according to the Act and according to their aptitude and ability? In view of that fact, will not she make representations to her right hon. Friend to give way on the question of affording bursaries to the parents of such children?

Lady Tweedsmuir: I realise the problem involved in the fact that these children do not receive higher school bursaries, but the hon. Member will remember the debate we had on this matter a year ago. The problem is that if we gave bursaries in this case we should create other anomalies.

Mr. Hannan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will state the estimated cost of providing bursaries for children attending special schools compulsorily to the age of 16 years, similar to those provided for children attending normal schools after the statutory age of 15 years.

Lady Tweedsmuir: The total cost might be about £15,000 a year.

Mr. Hannan: Is the hon. Lady aware that the Minister of Education, replying to a similar Question, said that in England and Wiles there were about 7,000 such children between those ages, and that the estimated cost is £10,000£15,000? In view of the very small number of children and the almost infinitesimal sum of money involved, compared with the huge sums which are spent by this Home on other matters, is it not time that both Departments got together in order to sort out this very real grievance?

Lady Tweedsmuir: As I said before. I recognise the problem. But I am sure that the hon. Member realises that this would involve legislation.

Mr. Wainwright: Will the hon. Lady take into account the fact that this step is necessary to assist the parents of these children? Does not she agree that the sum of money involved is so small that something ought to be possible for these children throughout the United Kingdom? Will she impress upon her right hon. Friends that on this occasion Scotland should show herself to be an example to the rest of the United Kingdom, and make a grant in respect of these children? Does not she also agree that


it would not mean much of an alteration to the Act to bring such a provision into operation? It would probably go through on the nod.

Lady Tweedsmuir: I agree that the sums involved are not very large in respect of either country, but legislation would be involved, and we could not manage it this Session.

Mr. Ross: Does not the hon. Lady appreciate that, with the help of the Opposition, she could secure that legislation easily and quickly during this Session? May we have, not just sympathy and understanding, but a little more generosity from the Government?

Lady Tweedsmuir: I could not promise legislation during this Session.

Publicly-Financed Contracts (Tenders)

Mr. W. Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland, what steps are taken to ensure that there is genuine competition in the tendering for publicly-financed contracts.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Gordon Campbell): The field covered by publicly-financed contracts including those which involve Exchequer grants is very wide indeed, but contracts for which my right hon. Friend is directly responsible are placed, with a very few exceptions, in competition by open or selective tendering.

Mr. Hamilton: How does the hon. Gentleman explain what happened when oil companies tendered for the heating of the Edinburgh hospitals and four of them quoted the same price to the last 100th of a 1d.—8·12d. per gallon? Does not that suggest to the Minister that there was a price-fixing arrangement between the companies? If he is so convinced, will he refer the matter to the Restrictive Practices Court?

Mr. Campbell: My right hon. Friend does not draw that conclusion. The oil companies were asked by the hospital board to confirm that the board was right to use the present bulk contract rate for planning purposes. Four of these companies confirmed the figure of the hospital board and two quoted a slightly lower round figure.

Mr. Hamilton: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether this has been a com

mon practice in this kind of contract in other parts of Scotland, in addition to the Edinbugh hospitals?

Mr. Campbell: I could not reply to that question without notice.

Firemen (Duties)

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that firemen under his jurisdiction in Scotland who are employed for fire prevention have now to use part of their time in cleaning out fire stations; and what steps he is taking to employ cleaners and thus to release firemen for the discharge of their proper duties.

Lady Tweedsmuir: The duties on which firemen are employed are a matter for fire authorities, always provided that they secure efficient arrangements for fighting fires and advising as to prevention. The employment of cleaners is also a matter for fire authorities and my right hon. Friend has no power to give directions in this matter.

Mr. Hughes: Are not these brave and skilled firemen especially trained in the technique of the prevention and extinction of fires, and is it not a disgraceful waste of their skill and technique that they should be forced to do unskilled work such as that adumbrated in the Question? Is not this a position which ought to be rectified and will the Secretary of State take steps to rectify it?

Lady Tweedsmuir: The responsibility for laying down the form of conditions of service rests with the National Joint Council for local authorities' fire brigades. I agree that fire prevention is most important and steps are being taken to train more fire prevention officers to enable fire authorities to improve their service to the public.

Mr. Ross: Does the hon. Lady appreciate that this aspect of fire fighting has been neglected? Would it not be better if, instead of spending so much time on spit and polish, firemen were enabled to visit factories and similar places so as to see the difficulties which they might have to face in the event of a fire in the factory, and also to take steps to ensure that an outbreak of fire would be most unlikely to happen?

Lady Tweedsmuir: I agree that fire prevention is of prime importance, but the Secretary of State has no power to direct the manner of the duties which firemen carry out.

Courts (Decrees for Debt)

Mr. W. Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many decrees for debt were issued in Scottish courts in 1951, 1955, 1960, and 1963, respectively.

Lady Tweedsmuir: The figures for 1963 are not yet available but I shall, with permission, circulate the figures for 1962 and the earlier years in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Hamilton: Cannot the noble Lady give the figures now? Can she say whether there has been a substantial increase in the figures since 1951? Can

DECREES FOR DEBT ISSUED IN THE SCOTTISH COURTS


—
1951
1955
1960
1962


Court of Session


(Inner House)
…
…
6
7
7
7


(Outer House)
…
…
194
126
232
239


Sheriff Ordinary Courts
…
…
8,232
10,658
23,861
27,734


Sheriff Small Debt Courts
…
…
39,087
63,241
111,575
109,894


J.P. Small Debt Courts
…
…
3,237
3,976
4,379
4,532



50,756
78,008
140,054
142,406


1963 figures are not yet available.

Fires (Loss of Life)

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will state the number of human lives lost in fires in Scotland during each of the last 10 years; what are the reasons for the increase in such losses during recent years; and what steps he has taken and proposes to take to minimise such losses.

Lady Tweedsmuir: I am circulating the figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I am unable to identify with certainty the factors which have contributed to the regrettable increase in the last two years but my Department is studying the problem in consultation with the Joint Fire Research Organisation.
Meanwhile, legislation has recently been passed to reduce fire risks in factories, and in offices, shops and railway premises, and similar legislation is being considered for residential establishments

she break them down to show how much of this small debt is due to the activities of the Napier firm? May we expect some reduction as a result of the passing, we hope very soon, of the Hire Purchase Bill?

Lady Tweedsmuir: I do not think that I will detain the House by reading all these figures, but I will give the general trend. There has certainly been a considerable increase since 1951. There are no separate statistics of decrees obtained in respect of hire-purchase debts. Therefore, I could not give an answer in reference to the one company mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. I agree that the Bill now before the House should give, much greater safeguards to the consumer.

The following are the figures:

and place; of resort: new building standards will shortly come into operation and more publicity is being given to fire prevention.

Mr. Hughes: Will the noble Lady give figures which show that there is a real and dangerous increase in the number of fires occurring in Scotland? Does she deny that this is due to the firemen—these skilled and brave men—being forced to divert their energies, instead of concentrating on the work for which they were especially trained?

Lady Tweedsmuir: I said that I am circulating the figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I gave an indication that the last two years have shown an increase. I quite agree, as I am sure the House will agree, that the work of fire prevention and fire fighting is one of the most gallant jobs which can be undertaken. I assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that more training is being done in fire prevention.

Mr. Bence: Is the noble Lady aware that there has been a tremendous increase in the load placed on domestic electrical wiring systems because of the increased use of electrical appliances in homes? Does not she think that the time has arrived when we should establish a fire inspection service so that the insulation and bonding of electrical circuits in factories, offices and homes could be examined, as this is frequently the cause of fires, particularly in the homes?

Lady Tweedsmuir: I agree that a large proportion of fires occur in homes. I said that consultations are taking place now about whether we can have further legislation on fire prevention.

Mr. Dempsey: Is the noble Lady aware that there has been an alarming increase in fires occurring in dwelling houses? Does she realise that one of the main reasons is lack of liaison between local authority architects, for example, and fire prevention services? Will she consider referring to the Secretary of State the suggestion that there should be better liaison so that before housing is approved the Ministry is satisfied that the fire prevention department of a local authority has vetted it?

Lady Tweedsmuir: Consultations are going on now between the local authorities and all those interested about the type of legislation we may have, and of course there are the new building standards in respect of new homes.

Mr. Hughes: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the replies to both those Questions, I wish to give notice that I shall raise the matter during the debate on the appropriate Scottish Vote.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. and learned Gentleman must give notice with regard to one Question and not two at once.

The following are the figures:


Human lives lost in fires in Scotland


Year
Firemen
Others


1954
—
66


1955
1
50


1956
—
65


1957
1
61


1958
1
52


1959
—
61


1960
15
71


1961
—
63


1962
3
85


1963
2
110

Herring Drift Net Fleet

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his policy for the herring drift net fleet; what is his estimate of the optimum number of vessels over the next 12 months; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Stodart: The policy of Her Majesty's Government is to provide reasonable financial support for herring fishing, whether with drift nets or other gear, by way of grants and loans for boats and operating subsidies.
I do not think that a meaningful estimate of the ideal herring drift net fleet can be given because it appears to depend on the season and on the circumstances prevailing and most of the vessels which can be and are used for drift net fishing for herring are also used at other times and with other gear for catching white fish.

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: Is the Minister aware that, according to the figures from the Secretary of State, the herring drift net fleet diminished from 80 boats to 30 boats in just over two months? How long does he think that the fleet can go on under those circumstances? Is he aware that the only way to provide a basic level at which the fleet may continue to prosper and expand is to ensure a basic level of support for the herring boats which can provide a living wage for the workers?

Mr. Stodart: My hon. Friend must be aware that most of the drift net fleet are dual-purpose vessels and the majority of the difference between 80 and 30 is represented by those which have turned over to white fish fishing. When the herring markets improve I have no doubt that, as usual, many fishermen will revert to catching herring.

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: Is my hon. Friend aware that the herring drift net fleet has diminished over the last few years and, naturally, when this has happened, every time fewer boats have gone back to herring drift net fishing? Will my hon. Friend consider this matter?

Mr. Stodart: I am always willing to consider, as I am sure my hon. Friend is aware, every proposition he puts forward.

Forth Road Bridge

Mr. Gourlay: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the progress of the Forth Road Bridge; and when he expects to announce the date of the official opening.

Mr. G. Campbell: Given a continuance of the recent favourable weather conditions, it is expected that traffic will be able to use the bridge this autumn. I should hope that it will be possible to fix the official opening date by early summer.

Mr. Gourlay: Will the Minister say whether it is still the intention of the Government to impose tolls on this bridge? Can he give an assurance that traffic will be allowed to use the bridge before the date fixed for the official opening?

Mr. Campbell: In answer to the first supplementary question, yes. In answer to the second, the best course would be for the formal opening of the bridge and its opening to traffic to coincide. If that proves difficult to arrange because of uncertainty, other arrangements may have to be made.

Mr. W. Hamilton: Can the hon. Gentleman say, if tolls will be levied, whether the Government intend to levy tolls when traffic first starts moving across the bridge, or after the date of the official opening?

Mr. Campbell: That is an entirely different question.

Wright Committee (Recommendations)

Dr. Dickson Mabon: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the recommendations of the Wright Committee.

Mr. Stodart: My right hon. Friend is considering the Committee's recommendations in consultation with regional hospital boards, the universities, the Royal colleges and the medical profession. I cannot yet say when a decision will be announced.

Dr. Mabon: Do the Government in principle welcome this Report? Is the Under-Secretary aware that the waiting list of patients is in direct relation

ship to the number of consultants? Is he aware that according to the Wright Committee 150 vacancies are in existence in the Western Regional Hospital Board area which is the worst area for N.H.S. patients waiting to be seen by consultants?

Mr. Stodart: All these matters have been noted and are forming the subject of consultation.

Disposable Sterile Syringes

Dr. Dickson Mabon: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will make a statement on the provision of disposable sterile syringes for the general medical services of the National Health Service.

Mr. Stodart: Hospital authorities in Scotland have been told that they may provide sterile syringes free of charge to general practitioners for taking specimens for examination in hospital laboratories.

Dr. Mabon: While I am grateful for that Answer, nevertheless it is not a reply to try Question, which is about disposable sterile syringes in general practice. Is the Under-Secretary aware that, particularly in Edinburgh, where the figures are very clear indeed—and I am told the health authorities have reported this to the Scottish Office—there is a growing incidence of jaundice arising from the use of syringes? Might it not be a good idea to adopt this suggestion as a general medical practice both in Scotland and England? Should not we in Scotland lead the way?

Mr. Stodart: It is at the discretion of regional hospital boards to supply disposable syringes to general practitioners for hospital laboratory purposes.

Dr. Mabon: On a point of order. I am very sorry, but in view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, which was not an answer to my Question, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter again.

Sheriff Courts (Committee's Report)

Mr. Lawson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects the Committee under the chairmanship of Lord Grant, which is inquiring into sheriff courts, to make its Report.

Lady Tweedsmuir: As my right hon. Friend, the Leader of the House, said in a reply to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes), on 14th February, it is not yet known when this Committee will report.

Mr. Lawson: Could the noble Lady say how often up to the present this Committee has met? Could she say how it is taking evidence and what opportunities local people who use the courts have of submitting evidence? Could she tell me to what extent this Committee will inquire into the problem of the very large numbers of persons in Scotland who have been held, and seem still to be held, in prison awaiting trial?

Lady Tweedsmuir: The Committee was appointed in early August and it held its first meeting at the end of August. It is now asking for and receiving a large amount of written evidence, so far from organisations representing the courts, the legal profession, local authorities, the T.U.C., insurance interests, and the police. I am sure that it would be very glad to receive individual representations as well. As to the last part of the supplementary question, about untried prisoners, the hon. Member will know that the Lord Advocate and the Secretary of State for Scotland are analysing the recent figures and, if necessary, will refer the matter to the Grant Committee.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Does not the noble Lady realise that this is a very urgent matter, affecting the social life of Scotland, and that the matter should be expedited, not put aside in the casual way the Government appear to be doing?

Lady Tweedsmuir: There is certainly no casual manner about this inquiry, which has very wide terms of reference, and which I am sure will report as soon as possible.

Excess Rate Payments (Repayment)

Mr. Millan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that repayment of rates is refused by a local authority in respect of a year other than the current year of valuation, even

where it is admitted that the rateable value for the year in question was entered by mistake on the valuation roll at too high a figure; and if he will introduce amending legislation to enable repayments to be made in those circumstances.

Mr. G. Campbell: My right hon. Friend is not aware that local authorities are refusing to repay excess rate payments where these are due to errors. Provision for such repayments is made in Section 20 of the Local Government (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act, 1963.

Hill Cattle Subsidy

Commander Donaldson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many farmers at present in receipt of hill cattle subsidy will cease to be eligible for this subsidy as a result of the review of livestock rearing farms.

Mr. Stodart: Forty-four farmers have so far been notified that they will be ineligible for hill cattle subsidy in future. As I said in reply to a Question on 27th November, these farmers will be paid subsidy in 1964 to give them time to make any necessary adjustments in their husbandry. There are in addition a number of cases which require further detailed consideration before a final decision on eligibility can be reached. These cases will be dealt with as quickly as possible in order that any farmers who are likely to lose their hill cattle subsidy may have reasonable warning of the withdrawal.

Commander Donaldson: I am amazed that the number is so small, but it is still a considerable number and of personal interest to the farmers concerned. Could my hon. Friend say what right of appeal is available to such farmers, how they will be dealt with and by what body?

Mr. Stodart: There will be the same sort of appeal procedure as is working so well now in connection with the Winter Keep Scheme. Whether or not the same panel will do the job has not yet been decided. I should like to consider further the precise composition of the consultative panel which will advise in this particular context.

Mr. Brewis: Can my hon. Friend say how many holdings will now become eligible for hill cattle subsidy as a result of getting winter keep?

Mr. Stodart: I am afraid not without notice.

Mr. W. Baxter: Is the Minister aware that this method of judging whether or not a holding is eligible for winter keep subsidy is causing a certain amount of discontent among farmers, because there is no way of being able to tell or to compare like with like? They do not know the criteria which justify getting them into the scheme or putting them out of the scheme. Would the Minister endeavour to draw up rules and regulations, probably based on arable land, to guide farmers as to whether they have a good case to go into the scheme or whether it is justified that they should be kept out?

Mr. Stodart: I think that goes slightly outside the range of this Question which has to do with the appeal procedure. As I said, the appeal procedure concerning winter keep grading is working, I think, to most people's satisfaction.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there has never been any time so far as I remember in the history of Scotland when there was so much discontent among the smaller farmers? Did he read that letter by a Conservative farmer in the Scotsman last Friday in which he was accused of "talking tripe"? Is he aware of the strong protests which have recently been made by the farmers of Perthshire? Now that we have the Prime Minister in the union, does not the hon. Gentleman realise that he might be expelled by the end of the year?

Mr. Stodart: I read the letter with some mortification last Saturday morning. The only thing I am not certain about is whether the hon. Member is right in describing the farmer as a Conservative.

Proposed Rail Closures

Mr. Millan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish the memorandum on rail closures submitted to him by the Highland Panel.

Mr. Stodart: No, Sir. My right hon. Friend has not yet received the report of the Highland Panel: nor can he give any undertaking to publish it when he does.

Mr. Millan: Why should not this report be published? Is the hon. Member aware that according to Press reports of a meeting between the Highland Panel and the Secretary of State last week, this document contains detailed arguments proving that the Beeching Plan for the north of Scotland is basically misconceived? Are not the public, and are not hon. Members, entitled to know what these arguments are? Why should not this evidence be published so that we may properly judge whether the decisions of Dr. Beeching or the subsequent decisions of the Government about the Highlands railway lines are justified?

Mr. Stodart: The answer is that other reports on this subject, such as the report by the T.U.C.C. to the Minister of Transport, are confidential. I think that my right hon. Friend will probably decide to treat as confidential the report to him of the Highland Transport Board, since some of the information to which the Board has access is of a confidential nature I point out to the hon. Member that consideration of such matters as industrial development possibilities and defence consideration ought to be kept confidential. As I have said, I do not think it right to publish partial statements.

Mr. Millan: Whatever the importance of keeping all defence consideration; confidential, is the Minister honestly saying that we should keep industrial development considerations confidential? Are the Government so frightened of what is happening to the Highlands that they are unable to let this information be made public? The Government art continually saying that all economic and social considerations are being taken into account before railway closures are made. Why should not this report be published so that we may all judge whether the Government are doing their job properly?

Mr. Stodart: I assure the hon. Member that the Government are not frightened about what is happening in


the Highlands or anywhere else. I repeat to him the logical proposition that if certain reports are confidential, it is obviously wrong to publish certain others.

Sir J. MacLeod: Will the Minister treat this matter carefully? Much of the success of the Highland Panel is because the deliberations are confidential. Although I, as a member of the Highland Panel, know the contents of this report, I hope that my hon. Friend will treat the matter with the greatest respect, because these deliberations, being confidential, are very valuable, and we do not wish to spoil them.

Mr. Ross: Will the Under-Secretary of State bear in mind that in relation to the rail closures in this area we have had so many statements and rumours, without any names attached, which emanated from St. Andrew's House that we should welcome something as authoritative as the view of the Highland Panel? Will he bear in mind, and will the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Sir J. MacLeod) bear in mind, that this is the same Panel which said that if the Government did not do something about it—and the Panel did not make that confidential—the members would resign as a body?

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF AVIATION

Air Corporations (New Aircraft)

Mr. Lubbock: asked the Minister of Aviation if he accepts the Estimates Committee's recommendation in its second Report for this Session that the Air Corporations should not have to bear the whole cost of introducing new British aircraft into service.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aviation (Mr. Neil Marten): All the Select Committee's recommendations are being carefully considered and replies will be given as soon as possible.

Mr. Lubbock: Is the hon. Member aware that this matter has been raised on several previous occasions by the chairmen of both Corporations and that while the Ministry has made encouraging noises, no hard cash has ever resulted? Does he appreciate that it is important that a decision be made as soon as possible on the very heavy costs

which will fall on B.O.A.C. with the forthcoming introduction of the VC10? Are the Government prepared to help them with a share of the £5 million which this is estimated to cost?

Mr. Marten: This is the sort of thing which is being considered. It is not true to say that there has been no assistance at all, because some assistance towards the cost of introducing new types of British aircraft into airline service was within the framework of the policy announced by my right hon. Friend on 15th February, 1960. The Hermes and the Herald, for example, have been receiving assistance of this kind.

Airports, Renfrew and Prestwick

Mr. Rankin: asked the Minister of Aviation if he will state the number of occasions during 1963 when either Renfrew or Prestwick airport was closed because of fog or other reasons.

Mr. Marten: Renfrew was closed for periods of about five hours on four separate days. There was no occasion on which Prestwick was completely closed.

Mr. Rankin: Can the hon. Member tell me why these figures do not tally with the figures which I have already received from his office to the effect that Renfrew was closed for four days in 1963 and that Prestwick was closed for four days in 1963? Can he reconcile the information which he has just given with the information which I received previously from his own office?

Mr. Marten: I am afraid that I was not myself asked, and I do not know from which part of my office the hon. Member obtained that information. I can take responsibility only for the Answer which I give him.

Aircraft (Fog Conditions)

Mr. Rankin: asked the Minister of Aviation if he will make a statement on the progress made to enable aircraft to take off and land in fog conditions.

Mr. Marten: The Mark 2 V-bombers and the Argosy aircraft now in service with the Royal Air Force are equipped with fully automatic landing systems. The Belfast will have a similar capability.
Fully automatic landing systems to meet the exacting safety standards for civil aircraft operations are being developed for the Trident and the VC10. An extensive programme of trials will be needed to prove the systems operationally but these aircraft and others fitted with fully automatic landing systems, should be able to operate from suitably equipped airports in poor conditions of visibility by 1969.

Mr. Rankin: May we take it, then, that the system which was long pursued—F.I.D.O.—has definitely been abandoned? Is the Minister aware that according to reports the Trident landed yesterday under automatic control? May we not expect that in civil aviation automatic control will be in operation a little earlier than 1969?

Mr. Marten: The first point is to be quite sure that it is absolutely safe. That is the reason for the delay. The system which is being used is based on that developed by the B.L.E.U. at R.A.E., Bedford.

Helicopters (Army Requirements)

Mr. McMaster: asked the Minister of Aviation whether he will announce his decision on which light helicopter is to be ordered for use by the Army.

Mr. Pounder: asked the Minister of Aviation if he will now make a statement on the light helicopter requirements for the Army.

Mr, Stratton Mills: asked the Minister of Aviation whether he will now make a statement about helicopter requirements.

Mr. Marten: I am not now in a position to announce a decision on helicopter requirements for the Army this week, but I hope to do so very soon.

Mr. McMaster: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this offer by Short Bros. on the Hiller helicopter is the result of the intervention of the Ministry of Aviation in putting Hiller in contact with Short Bros. and Harland? Is he aware that this helicopter has a better stretch and also a potential of export orders on three continents?

Mr. Marten: This is the sort of factor which is taken into account in arriving at any decision.

Mr. Pounder: Is my right hon. Friend aware that during last week's defence debate the Minister of Defence gave the House reason to think that this week would see a decision on the light helicopter requirement? Is he now certain that a decision will definitely be announced next week?

Mr. Marten: I certainly hope so. I regret this delay as much as does my hon. Friend, but it has been necessary for my right hon. Friend to re-examine certain financial aspects of the tenders.

Mr. Stratton Mills: Does my hon. Friend recall the Government's assurance in 1960 to bear in mind the social implications of placing orders with such firms where there is very little price differential?

Mr. Morten: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Wigg: Will the Minister be good enough to indicate whether the Government are reconsidering the whole proposal? In other words, are they reconsidering the three aircraft or is the Hughes still out of it? If so, does that mean that the Government are not taking the evaluation of the Hughes into account because there was not time to have done so in view of the fact that it was completed only a week ago last Saturday?

Mr. Marten: What we are considering is a matter for the Ministry of Aviation. When the announcement is made I will answer questions on that issue.

Aircraft Accident, Innsbruck

Mr. Lee: asked the Minister of Aviation whether he will make a statement on the Innsbruck air disaster.

Mr. Marten: As the House will know, a Britannia aircraft of British Eagle International Airlines crashed during the approach to Innsbruck Airport on 29th February, 1964. It was on a scheduled service with a crew of eight and seventy-five passengers. None of those on board survived.
Under international agreement, responsibility for the investigation of this accident rests with the Austrian Government. My right hon. Friend has appointed an inspector of accidents to be the accredited representative of the United Kingdom at this inquiry: he


flew out immediately. The Austrian Accident Commission has issued an interim report. The House will not expect me to comment in detail at this stage on the accident until we have received the final report.
I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that the House will wish to join me in expressing sympathy with the bereaved, and our thanks to all who under the most difficult mountain conditions sought the wrecked aircraft in the hope that there might be survivors. In addition our thanks are due to the United States Air Force for sending the specially equipped aircraft which first located the wreckage; and to other aircraft engaged in the search and to the Austrian Accidents Commission which is investigating the accident.

Mr. Lee: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that we on this side of the House would wish to be associated with his remarks about the bereaved and the assistance received from other people? The hon. Gentleman mentioned the interim report. Is he aware that I at any rate regret the publication of this report, because it would appear from what Dr. Rudolf Walch has said that it is purely a preliminary report and that the evidence is quite provisional? It seems to us a most unusual procedure that after a very short inquiry this should have been done, and Dr. Walch himself agrees that the full report cannot be ready for some months. Since the report seems to condemn the human element involved, some of us would not accept that condemnation unless we are given far greater proof than we now have.
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the whole House would like to feel that there was now to be a British inquiry into this accident? Does he realise that a great many questions remain to be answered, although I will not go into them today, and that the House and the country would feel more comforted if we could have a purely British inquiry, in which a total investigation could take place?

Mr. Marten: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his association with the remarks I made about the tragedy. As regards the interim report, I sincerely note the views he has expressed, but I am sure that it would be wrong for me to express an opinion on the action of a

foreign Government or a department of a foreign Government. As regards the public inquiry, I certainly note what he has said and will consider this when I have the final report available.

Mr. Stratton Mills: Will my hon. Friend say a word about the radar requirements for British aircraft? Is there any international agreement covering radar facilities at airports?

Mr. Marten: I understand that the plane was equipped with radar, but I have no information as to whether it was being used.

Mr. Woodburn: As one point has become clear arising out of the accident—that it is possible for altimeters to be misread or to vary slightly with climatic conditions—would the Parliamentary Secretary in the meantime set up an inquiry to see whether a more modern type of altimeter, which can be clearly seen by the pilot, should be installed in all passenger aircraft as soon as possible and the old ones eliminated?

Mr. Marten: I will certainly go into that question, but I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman an answer now.

Mr. Lubbock: While not wishing to press the hon. Gentleman into making any comments now on the actions of a foreign Government, may I ask him if it is the usual practice to issue a preliminary report based on the flimsiest of evidence at such an early moment in the course of an inquiry? Would it not have been better to have waited, since this report apparently casts some reflection on the action of the people involved?

Mr. Marten: As I said, it is not for me to comment on whether it would have been better for the Austrian Government to wait, but I can say that we in this country, when we make an accident report, do not issue an interim report in this way.

Mr. Rankin: In view of the difficulty that always crops up with these accidents of collecting reliable information, does this not once again emphasise the fact that it would be immensely useful if these machines carried small computers?

Mr. Marten: This machine was very fully equipped. Indeed, it was only fairly


recently purchased from B.O.A.C. It had a great amount of equipment of that nature in it.

STAGGERED HOLIDAYS

The Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development and President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Edward Heath): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to make a statement about the extension of the holiday season.
The Government have carefully considered the views expressed by a wide variety of organisations and by individual members of the public on the issues set out in the White Paper on Staggered Holidays which was laid before Parliament last July. The response has indicated a general desire that everything possible should be done to alleviate the growing congestion at the peak of the holiday season. The scope for direct intervention in this field is limited, but the Government consider that they should give a lead where it lies within their power.
Our further consultations have confirmed the view that a fixed spring Bank Holiday and a later August Bank Holiday could make a worthwhile contribution to the extension of the holiday season and to the avoidance of congestion for holiday-makers at peak holiday times. The Government have, therefore, decided, after full consultation with the interests concerned, that the August Bank Holiday for the next two years, 1965 and 1966, should be on the last Monday in August.
The Government would have wished to combine this experiment of moving the August Bank Holiday to the end of the month with a fixed spring holiday on the last Monday in May, 1965 and 1966, to replace the present Whit Monday Bank Holiday. This is not possible in 1965 because of the arrangements which have already been made for school examinations. These cannot now be changed without serious inconvenience. In 1966, the Whit Monday Bank Holiday will, in any case, fall on the last Monday in May.
The Government will review these arrangements in the light of experience gained during 1965 and 1966. If, as a

result, it is decided that the experiment of moving the August Bank Holiday should be made permanent they will consider replacing the present Whitsun Bank Holiday by a fixed spring holiday on the last Monday in May.
The consultations which we have had also suggest that the question of school examination dates is at least as important as the dates of the Bank holidays. This is not a matter within the control of the Government, but I understand that the Secondary Schools Examination Council has recommended to the examining bodies that the G.C.E. examinations should be completed in future years by the end of June. I hope, therefore, that parents of children of school age will, in future, be able to take family holidays from the beginning of July.
The Government believe that these changes in Bank Holiday and examination dates provide a basis for further action. They are anxious that everything possible should be done throughout industry to spread holidays over a longer season. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour will continue to explore with both sides of industry how further progress can be made.
I would urge the holiday trades to make their contribution by extending the season during which they provide full amenities in the resorts and holiday areas, and by offering inducements to the public to take their holidays at the less congested times of the year. In this, they will have the full support and encouragement of the British Travel and Holidays Association.

Mr. Gunter: Is the Minister aware that industry, in particular, will welcome his announcement? I am very glad that he is catching up with events, because it is more than a decade since the Trades Union Congress asked the Government to consider this very question.
The alteration in the date of August Bank Holiday will not of itself alter the habits of industry. Quite a section of industry, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, is already conditioned to regarding the first fortnight in August as the most desirable time for its holidays.
The Secretary of State said that the Minister of Labour will continue to explore the possibilities of spreading the


holiday season. What consultations have already taken place, and what form will future consultations take, to persuade industry to break, to a great extent at least, from its idea that August is the only month possible?

Mr. Heath: There were consultations through the National Joint Advisory Committee, with the Regional Boards for Industry, and with the Trades Union Congress. I think that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour will wish to use all the channels open to him in continuing these discussions.

Mr. F. M. Bennett: In view of the likelihood that the last Monday in May will become permanent, will my right hon. Friend say whether education authorities will take into account this strong possibility so that the obstacles in the way of it happening next year will not arise in 1967 and 1968?

Mr. Heath: Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Education is in contact with the education bodies on this point.

Mr. Wade: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the grandfather of my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) first introduced Bank Holidays in 1871 and also endeavoured to introduce a further Bank Holiday at the beginning of this century? Have there been any discussions with a view to having an autumn or Michaelmas Bank Holiday, which would help to break the period between August and Christmas, which is the longest period without a Bank Holiday break?

Mr. Heath: I am not quite clear whether the hon. Gentleman is suggesting an additional Bank Holiday for Michaelmas, no doubt to commemorate the founder's grandson. There has not been discussion about this, although there have been suggestions from some of the bodies which were consulted that this would be possible; and some have even suggested a further Bank Holiday in the New Year. There was also a minority who would have preferred to see August Bank Holiday moved well into September, but the general consensus of opinion was that the end of August was the most suitable.

Sir C. Taylor: Is there anything further to report about the discussions on a fixed Easter?

Mr. Heath: No, Sir. That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, but there is nothing further to report at the moment.

Mr. J. Hynd: The Secretary of State said that some bodies have suggested an extension in the number of Bank Holidays. Has he considered this, and, if so, what are his views on it? Will he give further consideration to this matter, since this country has probably less than half the number of Bank Holidays that most other countries have?

Mr. Heath: That is a much broader question. I was concerned with consulting about the most suitable time for the existing Bank Holiday.

Mr. Gough: While congratulating my right hon. Friend on this very interesting experiment, may I ask whether he is aware that it will cause a large additional expense to the diary trade? Does he agree that his predecessor informed those who make diaries—[Laughter.] This is a serious question. Diary makers work 18 months ahead. Millions of diaries have already been printed for 1965. Will my right hon. Friend look into this and consider paying compensation for losses, which, in some cases, will amount to several thousands of pounds?

Mr. Heath: I appreciate, from the consultations which we had with the manufacturers of diaries, that this poses a problem for them. They indicated to my Department that they would like a maximum notice of two years, if possible, before any date was changed. However, the pressures from the associations which were consulted to make the change as early as possible did not allow us to leave a gap which would take us into 1966 at the earliest before we could make any change. Therefore, it was not possible for us to delay this change.
I hope that it will be possible for the manufacturers of diaries, by a corrigendum slip, to indicate the change. I could not give any undertaking for financial recompense for so doing. This


difficulty will arise so long as this is an experimental matter. It is a difficult one for diary manufacturers.

Mr. Barnett: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think there is a strong argument for getting rid of national Bank Holidays and instituting regional bank holidays, in view of the difficulties of seaside resorts, transport facilities and road congestion through carrying the huge number of vehicles and passengers during national Bank Holidays? Has the right hon. Gentleman investigated seriously the possibility of regional or perhaps town holidays and also tying this up with the habits of industry and educational institutions?

Mr. Heath: A number of interesting suggestions of this kind have been made but, as I said in my statement, the sphere for direct intervention by the Government in these matters is very limited. At present, a number of towns and cities voluntarily arrange between themselves when factories will be closed to enable people to go on holiday to the same resorts without congestion. I am sure that this matter must be left to local initiative. It is not a matter for the central Government.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS

Rates

Dr. King: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 20th March, I shall call attention to the ever-increasing burden borne by the ratepayers, and move a Resolution.

Fleet Air Arm (Replacement Aircraft)

Mr. Farr: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 20th March, I shall call attention to replacement aircraft for the Fleet Air Arm, and move a Resolution.

National Health Service (Doctors and Nurses)

Mr. Rankin: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 20th March, I shall call attention to the serious shortage of doctors and nurses in the National Health Service, and move a Resolution. Maybe this will get precedence.

FLAMMABLE MATERIALS

3.46 p.m.

Mrs. Patricia McLaughlin: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prohibit the sale and manufacture of flammable materials for certain purposes.
My proposed Bill is very important and would make provision for the greater safety of women and children throughout the country. The short title would be "Flammable Materials" and the Long Title would be:
Bill to Prohibit the sale and manufacture of flammable materials for certain purposes.
My proposed Bill seeks to do two things—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will hon. Gentlemen be so courteous as to allow the hon. Lady to be heard?

Mrs. McLaughlin: The Bill would seek to prohibit the manufacture and sale of certain materials and garments after a specified period and would also make provision for the marking or labelling of garments which are already dangerous.
The Bill would be very short. It follows on the Home Secretary's statement yesterday that he intends to introduce regulations to prohibit the sale of children's nightwear which does not measure up to the B.S.I. standards of low flammability. My right hon. Friend is to let these regulations be seen by the various interested parties. It is important that this should be done as soon as possible so that next autumn we need not look forward to a further repetition of accidents to children by burning. They may not be ready by next autumn if the manufacturers have not agreed.
The Bill will also do something for older people—old ladies, in particular. Already this year a number have died from accidents resulting from their nightwear catching fire or from accidents resulting from them coming into contact with a naked flame or an exposed electric fire. Some have not died, but have suffered very severe and long-lasting injury.
I am told by various medical specialists that it is not sufficient merely to ban children's nightdresses. Pyjamas


made from highly flammable material can be deadly. Children play with matches. They play with lighters of all kinds—for instance, petrol lighters. Anything they can get hold of which lights up is relevant here. Specialists have told me that pyjamas which catch light, and are of the dangerous type of material which I am discussing and hope to prohibit, can produce a much nastier burn and more serious and long-lasting injury, if not death, than a nightdress which perhaps blows away from the body. The latter type of accident is serious enough, but it is not quite so deadly in some cases.
The regulations will not cover party wear or girls' party dresses, many of which are made from highly dangerous materials, or party wear for teen-agers. How does a regulation decide what is a child's nightdress and what is not? I am thinking of the size. There are some very large childen today. Sometimes a child aged 10 wears junior adult garments. Where will the line be drawn? Therefore, my proposed Bill, for which I have the support of many hon. Members on both sides of the House, intends to try to widen the scope and in the meantime to prevent, as far as possible, a recurrence of the sort of terrible accidents that we have had for many years, particularly those which occurred last winter and which led to the present outcry and demand for effective action with a view to securing greater safety.
I shall not weary the House with the long and tragic list of accidents, and their various causes. There are many reasons for the accidents; human nature and human weaknesses come into it, and so does carelessness, but we still have the responsibility to see that, as far as possible, Parliament does its part in protecting the consumer. The person who is able to buy and use any textile that is highly unsafe is not being sufficiently protected.
Clause 1 seeks to prohibit the sale of clothing fabrics and garments made from materials that do not measure up to the B.S.I. Standard 3121, which is the standard of low flammability, and this prohibition would take effect 12 months from the date of the Bill becoming law. It would be 12 months before manufacturers could come to satisfactory

arrangements within their industries, deal with their own particular problems, and either make their material safe, alter it, or make some other type of material. This interval would prevent the hiatus that would occur in the textile industry if an earlier date were suggested.
Only certain materials fall into this category—the range is not as wide and sweeping as might be thought. Anyone reading the B.S.I. report on flammable material, and who turns to this subject of low-flammability materials, will realise that, generally speaking, the manmade fibres are safe, as are all the heavier materials. Generally speaking, it is only those materials made from brushed cotton, brushed rayon, or blends—it is a minority of the different types of materials that are on the danger list, and these have been exploited for far too long without being brought within the safety limits.
For years this flammability standard was sought, and it is still not as high as it should be but, at the same time, it is the one criterion we have on which to work and, as such, it does provide a very fair measure of safety. We therefore propose to eliminate all those materials that fall within the dangerous categories outlined in the B.S.I. standard, 12 months from the date of the Bill becoming law unless, in the meantime, manufacturers take steps, by some treatment or another, to make their materials safe enough to reach the flammability standard.
It is argued that this requirement will make these textiles more expensive, but some of them will still be much less expensive than the man-made fibres and, in any case, the difference in the price of children's garments is less than the cost of a packet of cigarettes, and I am sure that any family would be satisfied, in this day, and this supposedly enlightened age, to pay the difference.
Clause 2 would provide, as an interim safety measure, that within three months of the passing of the Bill into law all garments manufactured from materials that do not measure up to the safety standard, and all dress and clothing material on sale, must be marked either, in the case of material, right along the selvedge, or in the case ing "Flammable: keep away from fire of garments with a sewn-in label, read


or heat". I would like to make it very much tougher, with the label saying, "Highly dangerous", but one can hardly expect manufacturers to put such a label on a garment.
The use of the words "Flammable: keep away from fire or heat", clearly stated on a label on every garment or on the selvedge of every piece of material, could be followed up by voluntary organisations doing their utmost to make sure that people understood that they were taking their own child's life, or their own life, into their hands by deliberately using this material. It would also mean that in the textile industry there would be a slow rundown in these types of materials, without a complete loss. I am told that within a few months it will be possible for flame-resistant treatment to be available in large quantities to all manufacturers wishing to use it. In this case, sales and safety would go hand in hand.
In asking the House for leave to bring in the Bill, it is always difficult to explain in a short time just how important the Measure is, but I feel sure that, in this case, the House has studied the problem, and knows the danger of allowing people to buy something that is inherently unsafe. If I am given permission to bring in the Bill, I think that it will do a great deal to be fair to the manufacturers, to be honest with the public—which is very important—and to give to those who might otherwise very easily suffer accidents in the future the possibility of escaping them.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mrs. McLaughlin, Mrs. Braddock, Wing Commander Bullus, Mr. E. Johnson, Mr. Dance, Lord Balniel, Sir J. Duncan, Mrs. Hill, Commander Courtney, Mr. Turton, Mr. Allason, and Dr. Dickson Mabon.

FLAMMABLE MATERIALS

Bill to prohibit the sale and manufacture of flammable materials for certain purposes, presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 20th March and to be printed. [Bill 101.]

Orders of the Day — HARBOURS BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New Clause.—(ASSOCIATION OF PILOTS WITH SCHEMES ESTABLISHED BY CON TROL OF MOVEMENT ORDERS.)

(1) Where part of the area with respect to which the scheme established by a control of movement order relates coincides with pact of a pilotage district (hereafter in this subsection referred to as the "district concerned") but no part of that area coincides with part of another such district, the order shall be so framed as to secure (if it be practicable so to do) that there shall be included amongst the members of the body by whom that scheme is to be administered (or, if it is to be administered by more bodies than one, amongst the members of each of them) a person nominated by the pilotage authority for the district concerned; and where two or more parts of such an area as aforesaid severally coincide with parts of different pilotage districts, the order shall be so framed as to secure (if it be practicable so to do) that there shall be included as aforesaid a person nominated by the pilotage authority for one or other of those districts.

(2) For the purposes of the foregoing subsection, where a control of movement order relates to two or more harbours, the several areas with respect to which the scheme established by the order relates shall be treated as being a single area.—[Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

3.56 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry (of Transport (Vice-Admiral John Hughes Hallett): I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
This new Clause meets the undertaking given in Committee that pilots should be properly represented on the bodies set up to administer control of movement schemes in Clause 18. The wording is complicated, but it was necessary to draft the Clause so as to provide for both single and multiple harbour areas in a scheme, either being associated with single or multiple pilotage areas.
The two cases of multiple and single pilotage areas are dealt with separately in subsection (1). The first part of subsection (1) deals with the case of a single pilotage area, and the second part—that is, lines 8 to 12 of the subsection—deals with the case where more than one pilotage area is affected. In this


latter case it would often be appropriate for each pilotage area to have a representative on the body administering the control of movement scheme.
This might prove unnecessary and unacceptable in particular cases, so the wording has been chosen to allow representation from all the affected pilotage areas, but not to require this. The Clause merely requires representation from
…one or other of those districts.
To get round the difficulty of multiple harbour areas, subsection (2) establishes that several harbour areas concerned in a single order shall be treated as a single area.
I think that this new Clause goes all the way to meet the points that were made in Committee, and that the pilots need have no fear that their invaluable experience and local knowledge will be ignored in the administration of control of movement orders.

Mr. R. J. Mellish: We are very pleased to see this new Clause on the Notice Paper. It means that the Parliamentary Secretary has kept a promise made in the Standing Committee, and it gives me an opportunity to amend something that I said at that time.
I was very much concerned that the pilots should have representation in regard to all these control of movement orders. I argued accordingly, and was supported by my colleagues. I said that a glaring example of the consequence of pilots not being consulted when the new dock was built at Tilbury was that there had always been great difficulties about ships entering and leaving the dock.
I have had a letter from Lord Simon, Chairman of the Port of London Authority, telling me that that statement was not true; that the pilots were consulted, and that the dock was built to a large extent in accordance with their wishes. I then wrote to the pilots to ask how they dare say that to me and mislead me, to which I had correspondance to say that that was not true, either. My point is that I want to convey to the hon. and gallant Gentleman how necessary it is that on matters of this kind experts shall, by law, be

consulted, because after these docks were built there was bitter disagreement as to whether or not they had been consulted. It certainly could be said that they were built in such a way that it caused great hardship to those who were entering and leaving the harbour.
4.0 p.m.
The Clause will make certain that, in future, where control of movement orders are made, the pilots will be consulted. They, after all, are responsible for ensuring that ships are brought into and taken out of harbours safely. We are delighted with the Clause. I think that we shall find that it is one of many improvements which the Parliamentary Secretary has conceded to the Opposition after some spirited debate.

Commander Harry Pursey: As one who served in Committee on the Bill, I should like to associate myself, without repetition, with all that my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) has said, but I wish to get one matter clear with the Parliamentary Secretary. The heading of the new Clause is, "Association of pilots with schemes established by control of movement orders". It is not sufficient to say that the pilotage authority should be associated. This is particularly the case where there is an estuary under dual control, like that of the Humber where the conservancy board is responsible for the pilotage but movement control orders and other things which we shall be going into later will be the responsibility of another authority.
The pilots in Hull run a pilotage committee, but there is another committee, which has a title something like "marine committee", dealing with port information services. It is not represented on the pilotage committee. Is it intended that the pilots should be individually and collectively represented on the actual committee which will deal with all that flows from the Bill, such as movement control and pilotage information service? Can it be made clear on the record once and for all so that the Hull pilots shall know exactly where they stand for the first time in their long history?

Dr. Horace King: When we tried, in Committee, to prevent the Parliamentary Secretary


from eroding away the responsibility of pilots and masters, one of our Amendments asked that pilots, wherever an appropriate pilotage authority existed, should have the right to be represented on the control of movement authority. I said, according to column 435 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of that Committee, that I felt sure that the Parliamentary Secretary could accept that Amendment out of hand.
In essence, the hon. and gallant Gentleman did so. He told us that he could not accept the words of the Amendment and that there were problems, the most important of which probably being that the control of movement authority would not exactly coincide with the pilotage authority. There might be two pilotage authorities serving the whole or a part of an area which became the subject of one control of movement order. This is the problem which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, East (Commander Pursey) has raised. There might even be pilotage authorities which did not wish to be represented on the control of movement authority.
The new Clause meets our Amendment handsomely. If the pilotage authority and the control of movement authority coincide, the pilotage authority will have the right under the Clause to nominate a member of the contol of movement authority. If there are two or more pilotage authorities concerned with an area subject to one control of movement authority the Clause ensures that at least one pilot from one or other of the two pilotage authorities will be nominated.
The debate gives us the opportunity to say how much we appreciate the forthright and generous way in which the Parliamentary Secretary has met the point that we made in Committee. If we do not say that again and again in the course of the debate about the many occasions where he has met points which we have raised, it will be only to avoid repetition. There will still be occasions, however, in this debate, where we shall not be able to congratulate the hon. and gallant Gentleman and we shall be fighting bitterly for the point of view that we expressed in Committee. But here we give wholehearted thanks on behalf of the pilots of the country.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I am much obliged to the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King). In reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Commander Pursey), there is a statutory requirement on these bodies that pilots should be represented. The case of the Humber Estuary is quite different. One of these control of movement bodies cannot come into being until the Bill is enacted and until the proper authority has applied to my right hon. Friend for an order to be made.

Mr. James H. Hoy (Edinburgh, Leith): Can the Parliamentary Secretary clear up the dispute between the pilotage authorities and the Port of London Council? Can he tell us who were consulted before the new Clause was put on the Notice Paper? We agree with the Clause. We moved something very similar to it in Committee. Were the pilotage authorities consulted.? If not, why not?

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I do not think that there was any call for consultation after the Committee had made its views so clear and after some hon. Members had spoken from a brief for the pilots. As far as I know, the only consultation that took place was with the parliamentary draftsmen to find out how we could make this complicated form of words meet the situation.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause.—(BYELAWS FOR PREVENTING INTERFERENCE WITH OPERATION OF SCHEMES ESTABLISHED BY CONTROL OF MOVEMENT ORDERS.)

(1) A harbour authority engaged in improving, maintaining or managing a harbour to which a scheme established by a control of movement order relates may make byelaws (subject to confirmation by the Minister) for securing that the putting into effect of the scheme is not prevented or impeded.

(2) Byelaws made by virtue of the foregoing subsection may include provision for the punishment of a person who contravenes, or fails to comply with, any of them, by the infliction, upon his being summarily convicted of an offence consisting in the contravention or failure, of a fine not exceeding £20.

(3) Sections 250(2) to (7) and 252 of the Local Government Act 1933 (which relate to the procedure for making, and evidence of, byelaws) shall apply to any byelaws made under subsection (1) of this section by a


harbour authority as if they were a local authority and their secretary or clerk were the clerk to a local authority.

(4) No power to make byelaws vested, by a statutory provision other than subsection (1) of this section, in a harbour authority engaged as therein mentioned shall be exercisable for the purpose so mentioned.

(5) In the application of this section to Scotland, for the references to subsections (2) to (7) of section 250 and to section 252 of the Local Government Act 1933 there shall be substituted respectively references to section 301(3), (4), (5), (7) and (11) to (13) and to section 303 (except paragraph (d) thereof) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1947.—[Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
It might be for the convenience of the House to discuss, at the same time, the Amendment in my right hon. Friend's name in Clause 18, page 21, line 36, leave out subsection (6).

Mr. Speaker: If the House so pleases.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: The new Clause is designed to take the place of that subsection. It ensures that bye-laws made under the provisions of this part of the Bill follow the normal procedure for making byelaws.
Clause 18(6), in its present form, gives harbour authorities the power to make byelaws to secure that the putting into effect of a scheme is not prevented or impeded. But it does not lay down procedures to govern the making of these byelaws. This was pointed out in Committee by the hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin), who moved an Amendment seeking to make these bye-laws subject to the Minister's approval. We accepted the idea behind the Amendment. The new Clause constitutes the necessary drafting to put it into effect. The Amendment in page 21, line 36 is, of course, necessary to delete the substituted subsection from the Bill.

Mr. A. J. Irvine: We welcome the new Clause. As the hon. and gallant Gentleman has pointed out, the Bill as it stood originally gave power to make byelaws, but without the safeguards and consequential arrangements which are required to put the matter in order. We regard the new Clause as making good the deficiency.

Dr. King: The new Clause is certainly an improvement on the one which it replaces, but I must comment on this question, as I so frequently had cause to do in Committee. The new Clause adds one more negative provision to a Bill by which we are seeking the cooperation of all authorities to make the docks and harbours of this country more efficient than they are now. The new Clause reminds me of the mother who said to her daughter, "Go and see what little Johnny is doing outside and tell him to stop it at once". It is a negative provision. It adds one more to the 18 sets of penalties with which the Bill is so liberally besprinkled. The one good thing which the new Clause does is to remove the defect which the Clause it replaces had in that it puts the harbour authorities on a par with the local authorities when they seek to make byelaws.
Subsection (4) of the new Clause completes the negative picture. Having said, in subsections (1), (2) and (3), what may be done and what punishments are devised to see that no authority disobeys schemes which are for the good of all authorities and in which one would expect them to co-operate, it then takes from the harbour authorities any other powers which they may now have to make byelaws. I do not know whether any of them have had positive powers under existing legislation, but, when the Clause becomes law, any other power which they have to make byelaws will be taken away. All they will have will be the negative power to decide a set of things which must not be done, subject to the penalties in subsection (2).
All these references to byelaws and enforcement relate to control of movement orders which nobody wants. Again, I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to tell us which group of citizens, which harbour boards, which captains of ships, which pilots, or which dock authorities have asked for control of movement orders power to enforce which under byelaws the new Clause is designed to enforce?
I am opposed entirely to the control of movement order. If it were possible, I should wish to vote against the bye-laws which give force to them.

Mr. John Silkin: I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for giving


way on this matter. Had the original Clause remained—I think that this deals to some extent with what my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King) has in mind—there would have been extraordinary anomalies in the law governing the making of byelaws. Under the old 1847 Act one might have had one set of byelaws, with a penalty entirely different from what is proposed in the Bill, and the result would have been to make confusion worse confounded. In addition, according to the 1847 Act, the making of byelaws and penalties thereunder was under the supervision, in many cases, of entirely different bodies, in some cases in England and Wales under the control of the justices, in some cases in Scotland under the control of the sheriff court.
The new Clause, whether it be penal or not—if we are to have byelaws, there must, I am sure, be penalties attached to their breach—gives a uniformity throughout the country to all harbours, to the byelaws, and to the penalties, and it makes them subject to the Minister's confirmation. I am very glad to welcome the new Clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Clause 1.—(THE NATIONAL PORTS COUNCIL.)

4.15 p.m.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I beg, to move,
That Clause 1 be divided into two clauses, the first consisting of subsections (I) to (3) and the second of subsections (4) to (9).
This Amendment simply seeks to improve the layout of this important opening Clause of the Bill. It is a drafting Amendment which, we think, makes the Clause more satisfactory.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Mellish: I beg to move, in page 1, line 13, at the end to insert:
with a view to ensuring that such harbours, services and facilities are adequate to meet the existing or anticipated requirements of shipping or port users".
In Committee, we had at one time an almost unique situation. The Parliamentary Secretary had made certain concessions to arguments which we had put about Clause 1 as then drafted. We

had put down some Amendments—this was one of them—and, after some debate, it was finally agreed that the Committee should adjourn to enable the Government to redraft Clause 1. This they did, and when we came back after the Christmas Recess, although we still had this Amendment on the Notice Paper, in order to facilitate Government business—I gather that this is how it had to work—we withdrew our Amendment to enable the Government to get on with the newly drafted Clause.
Without wishing to be facetious, I think that the fact that it was the Parliamentary Secretary and not the Minister who was dealing with the matter was a great help. The hon. and gallant Gentleman fell over backwards to assist and we were grateful for what he did. Whether the Minister would have been so generous, I do not know. What the hon. and gallant Gentleman did certainly made for a good atmosphere.
I have now put before the House the Amendment which we had on the Notice Paper in Committee. In our view, the National Ports Council should be not an advisory body, but a body with power and real teeth. Of course, it must consult always with the harbour authorities and all those responsible for running the docks and harbours, but, if it is to be a realistic body, it must have powers to do a first-class job.
Our object in putting down the Amendment was to secure the long-term future. We believe that our Amendment would strengthen the Clause. I do not think that there will be any dispute between the Minister and this side of the House about that. What the Amendment does is to back up what Rochdale said in his Report. As has been said before, one of the great things about the Rochdale Report was that it dealt not only with the industry of today but with the industry of tomorrow. This is the first time we have ever had the dock industry analysed not so much from the pint of view of a rather wretched past at times, but from the point of view of what we hope will be a wonderful future.
If Rochdale is right, the dock industry's future will be a very fine one. Provided that our docks are modernised, provided that, to some extent, they have


a central authority of this kind, and that Rochdale's expectations about an increase in trade are fulfilled, we shall have no need to fear competitors from abroad. If I may, I take this opportunity to say again to the dock workers that they have no need to worry about the future of their industry and about decasualisation. Indeed, this will be one of the special requirements of the industry of tomorrow.
This was our object in urging the adoption of the words which we propose. We felt that they gave emphasis to what we called forward planning. We want to ensure that the National Ports Council and the harbour authorities will constantly have in mind long-term planning.
This Amendment was not discussed in Committee because of the jamboree we all got involved in there in the circumstances I have described. The Parliamentary Secretary is on record as agreeing with us in wishing to make the National Ports Council an effective body. He agrees with us all along the line about this, and I hope, therefore, that the Amendment will be readily accepted by the Government.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Ernest Marples): I listened with interest to what the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) said and noted that he was very grateful for my absence during some of the Standing Committee's proceedings. However, I am here today.
I agree with the hon. Member, in principle, that we want the National Ports Council to have teeth, to be effective, to look forward and to devise comprehensive plans for the docks so that they are worthy of a trading nation whose trade will, I think, expand enormously in the next decade or two. Therefore, the hon. Member and I agree on that. I think that he will also agree that I played some part in appointing Lord Rochdale and his Committee and in bringing this Measure before the House. I should not have done that if I did not have that in mind.
As the Clause is drafted, the Council has a duty laid upon it. Under subsection (1,a) it has a duty concerning
the improvement of existing, and the provision of new, harbours in Great Britain and of services and facilities provided at such harbours".

The Amendment adds to that duty. It sets out precisely the objectives which the Council should have in mind when preparing its plans.
This matter was debated in Standing Committee and I have read the OFFICIAL REPORT of the debates. I think that there was general agreement that my hon. and gallant Friend the Parliamentary Secretary had just about got the arguments right, and we redrafted the Clause accordingly. I was, therefore, a little surprised to see this Amendment on the Notice Paper.
There are three arguments against the Amendment, and I ask the hon. Member for Bermondsey to consider them carefully. First, the words of the Amendment are dangerous because they are not, and cannot by their nature be, all embracing. In other words, there are considerations other than those with which the Amendment deals which should be taken into account. What about, for example, strategic considerations? Once we start trying to develop the objectives which the Council should have in mind when drawing up comprehensive plans, we will not know where to stop. Employment considerations of a wide nature might have to be taken into account under some of the regional development plans. That is the first argument against the Amendment.
The second argument against it is that if we leave out a particular objective, does it mean that the Council should not consider that objective because provision for it is not made in the Statute? As I say, the Amendment cannot be all embracing by the nature of the task which the hon. Member for Bermondsey has tried very assiduously to carry out. Therefore, what happens to the considerations which are not dealt with?
The third argument against the Amendment is that it is unnecessary, for this reason. It is implicit from the way in which the Council's terms of reference are drafted that it will have regard to the wider objectives of national ports policy. It is far better to leave the Council unfettered in this respect than to set it particular objectives. The hon. Member for Bermondsey mentioned forward planning. It is very difficult to be comprehensive in this matter if we have to take into account things of a technical nature which may happen in


future. It is extremely difficult now to be able to say precisely what the Council's objective should be—I will not say for all time, but certainly for a generation or so. It would be very much better if the matter were left flexible because it is implicit that the Council should have regard to the wider objectives of national ports policy.
At one time I thought—I do not think it now—that the intention behind the Amendment might be to ensure that the interests of those affected by the Council's plans were brought into consultation. This matter was debated fully in Committee. The Government moved an Amendment to subsection (2) to provide for that consultation by the Council with such harbour authorities and other persons as appeared to the Council to be directly concerned. I therefore do not think that we need the Amendment. If the Council has these consultations with the harbour authorities, and so on, it is surely implicit that it will take into account the wider considerations for as far ahead as it can see.
I think that the idea of the hon. Member for Bermondsey was quite worthy, but I think that, on second thoughts, he will realise how difficult it is to add an Amendment stating what the Council's objectives should be and to make it all embracing. I ask the House to reject the Amendment, because it is a rather dangerous one.

Mr. Guy Barnett: I am not entirely convinced by the case which the Minister has made. He said that the objectives of the Council should be broader than those stated in the Amendment. He referred to strategic considerations and considerations involving regional planning. I should have thought that such considerations were primarily involved in Government planning. These are the kind of directions which the Government would give to the Council when they thought it right to do so.
If it was thought that strategic considerations were involved, that would be a matter which would, I suppose, come under the Ministry of Defence. If regional planning considerations were involved presumably the Secretary of State for Industry and Trade would get in touch with the Minister of Transport with

a view to asking him to instruct the Council to make certain arrangements in the light of the regional planning which was going on.
I agree with the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) in support of the Amendment. It seems to me extremely important that in discussing our transport policy, whether it be in connection with roads, railways or harbours, we should consider the kind of services which the harbours are designed to give, whether to port users or to shipping. I feel that the Minister might have given the Amendment slightly more consideration than he has done.

Mr. Mellish: I am sorry that the Minister saw so much danger in our Amendment We never dreamed that it was such a menace. We certainly shall not take it to a vote.
It is generally agreed that the Rochdale Report was probably the best report ever made on the dock industry. It talked about the trends of today and tomorrow. This was the whole emphasis of the Report. Lord Rochdale made hardly any reference to what went on in the past. There is no point in going back over the past. We have had so much of that in the dock industry. Lord Rochdale will not be for ever the Chairman of the National Ports Council. He is human, like the rest of us, and he will last for only X number of years.
We wanted the Council to have this as part of its terms of reference and to consider it as priority No. 1. The Minister does not agree. He seemed to think that our wording went too far or not far enough. He used the argument both ways. We felt that the Government would realise that the Amendment would not embarrass his Lordship and the Committee. However, in view of the Minister's opposition, we shall not press it to a vote. There has been good will in the Committee, and I hope that there will be throughout. If this is how the Government feel about the Amendment, we will not vote on it. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I beg to move, in page 2, line 16, at the end to insert: "or a marine work".
Hon. Members who were members of the Committee will recall that when the


Bill first appeared there was a general exclusion of marine works from the operation of the Bill. In due course, that provision had to be removed when it was decided for certain purposes to put marine and fishery works into the Measure. However, we did not make that decision until after Clause 1 had been passed, otherwise the Amendment would have been moved in Committee.

Amendment agreed to.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Hoy: I beg to move, in page 2, line 20, at the end to insert:
and of the members of the council three including the Chairman shall be full-time members".
I think that we stated clearly in Committee the reason for this Amendment. We felt that if the National Ports Council, which will do a very important job for the ports and harbours of this country, was to do its work efficiently and without delay it was essential that three of its members should be full-time members. We have specified that the chairman should be one of the three who was in full-time employment.
To repeat our arguments, the docks will have a very difficult time holding their own with docks and harbours on the Continent of Europe and elsewhere in the world. The whole tendency is for deep-water facilities to be provided for the ever-increasing size of ships. As I pointed out on an earlier occasion, £75 million is being provided to build Europort, which is one and a half times the size of the sum that we are providing in the Bill for the whole of the ports of Britain. It is against that background that we have to consider the Amendment.
The tendency for shipping is to get bigger and bigger. Certainly, in the grain trade, in the very near future only those ships which are able to carry large quantities will be economically viable. For this purpose, it is essential that we provide in this country deep-water quays, which are no less important to us than those now being provided by our competitors on the Continent of Europe. When the situation is urgent, this is not something which will be tackled by people who have a few hours to spare in any one week. It

is a job which calls for at least part of the National Ports Council to be employed in a full-time capacity.
Since moving the Amendment in Committee, I have had experience of what has been happening in connection with my constituency port, which was singled out by the Rochdale Committee as presenting the best opportunity for developing a deep-water port in Britain at minimum cost. As Lord Rochdale said, it could be done in Leith for only one-fifth of what it would cost in any other part of Britain. Lord Rochdale said that the essence of the scheme was speed and that there should be no delay in carrying out the project. Despite this, however, since the setting up of the National Ports Council, further delay has ensued. I do not suggest that the present members of the Council have wilfully delayed. What I am pointing out is that as part-time members, they obviously cannot give the job the attention which is desired. I use this merely as an example to point out what might happen concerning the development of ports throughout the country.
From an economic viewpoint, it is important for Britain to have ports which are first-class and are not inferior to those of our competitors. To do this, we must have a National Ports Council which is not only able to do the job, but can carry it out speedily and efficiently. We do not think that this can be done by people who meet in a part-time capacity.
Secondly, there is always the argument that the only man who will be full-time will be the director-general—that is the title which is given to the permanent secretary. Therefore, the whole Council will be dependent upon this one full-time official. This is not good for the Council for that official.
Therefore, on behalf of my hon. Friends, I move the Amendment with much greater hope than we had upstairs, hoping that the Government have now realised that it is imperative for the development of our ports that the Council should, at the very least, have three members who will be giving their full time to this job, which is essential for the well-being of British ports.

Dr. King: This is our first head-on clash with the Minister on Report and


I seriously hope that we shall be able to persuade him, as we failed to persuade his hon. and gallant Friend the Parliamentary Secretary in Committee.
We want the Bill to work. There is no division between the two sides of the House. We like the Bill and we believe in all that it sets out to do. That is why we had such a fine Committee stage upstairs. But we want the National Ports Council to be strong. We want it to be strong in the quality of its members as well as in its power. We realise, as the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary must realise, what a vast task they are placing upon the shoulders of the new Ports Council. We want the best Ports Council that it is possible to create.
We did not discover until the Committee stage that even the chairman would be only part-time. It slowly dawned on us in Committee that the Ports Council had already been created before the Bill had been passed through the House of Commons. It is true that the present Council is in an advisory capacity only, but to shelter behind that fact is to split words. It is clear that the present advisory council will become the full Ports Council as soon as the Bill becomes law. On this, I protest. The Government have worked on the principle of doing something and making a law about it afterwards, what we might call anticipatory legislation.
The Ports Council has to make plans about the lifeblood of Britain, about one of its main arteries for world trade, the docks and ports of Britain. It has to advise, to alter and even to veto the careful plans of all the docks and harbours. They will be sent up to the Council for approval, modification or condemnation and the Council, on the strength of its wisdom, experience and knowledge, will submit to the Minister recommendations to support certain plans financially or to withhold financial support from others.
The Council can reorganise harbours. It can even doom harbours to slow extinction. It can freeze a harbour at its present capacity. It can group a number of harbours together. All this is a colossal task. In carrying it out, there are two essentials. One is cooperation and good will, and more and more evidence is coming of the co

operation and good will of the whole of the industry concerned. Surely, however, it is essential to have on the Council men to whom the work of the Council is the whole of their life.
To illustrate by way of analogy, I believe that some day the country will recognise that Parliament would almost collapse tomorrow but for the fact that there are sc me full-time back benchers who man the Standing Committees and there are Ministers who give the whole of their time to Ministerial work. There may be a case in Parliament and in the Ports Council—Lord Rochdale was quite right to consider this—to bring in from outside men with wide and varied experience who will serve in a full-time capacity and bring to the Council their knowledge of finance, commerce and industry and all the things that we look for in the qualities of the members of the Ports Council. There is an unanswerable case for saying to some members of the Ports Council, "This is your life. This is something of which we want you to make a full-time job."
Even the Rochdale Report, which the Minister has followed in its general recommendation that the new Council should consist of part-timers, said that one man should be a full-timer. I quote from paragraph 147 of the Report:
The Authority should consist of a small Board supported by a permanent staff…All members should…be appointed on a part-time bass, but the Chairman would naturally be expected to devote a substantial amount of time to the work…The permanent stiff should be headed by a Director…the Director, as chief executive of the Authority, should "have a seat on the Board''.
For "Board" we can read "Council".
Even Rochdale himself, who was advocating largely a part-time Ports Council, recommended that at least there should be one full-time man, to be called a director, who should sit on the Council. When we debated this in Committee, the Parliamentary Secretary defended the principle of part-time appointment; by saying that the Council was an advisory body. Anyone who has looked at the Bill, and read the debates in Committee on the power that we have given to the Council and the Minister, in conjunction with each other, and


the formidable sanctions that the Bill will give to the Ports Council, might imagine that this new Council will be merely an advisory body.
In all our criticisms in Committee and in this debate we make no personal reflections on the men who have been appointed to the Ports Council. I think that the Minister has chosen well, and that he has the right to be proud of the fact that he very wisely chooses men to do jobs. He gives them a responsible job, having chosen men very carefully indeed.
Every hon. Member on this side of the House admires Lord Rochdale. With my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish), I had the privilege of attending a social meeting of the Docks and Harbours Association last week, where I met some of the members of the Ports Council—men of quality who will take their work seriously. I think that they are keenly interested in the whole spirit of this new legislation; but even the best man who is a part-time man can only do a part-time job. All the members at present on the Council will divide their ability between the job for which they are receiving a full-time salary and that for which they are receiving an honorarium. Their real job must come first.
This is why I urge the Minister seriously to consider the representations which were made in Committee and are being made now, not that the whole of the Ports Council should be full-time members, but that, if he will not accept our proposal for three, he will at least accept the Rochdale Committee's recommendation that one should be a full-timer. I hope, therefore, that he will be able to accept the Amendment.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. George Jeger: I would ask the Minister to reconsider this matter and accept our Amendment. There was a strong debate on this in Committee, and the reply that we received from the Parliamentary Secretary, while as usual courteous, was not very informative or very full.
On looking through the Rochdale Committee's Report, one finds that there was a considerable amount of work to be done and ports to be visited by the

Committee, yet it visited 15 ports out of about 350 before making its Report. That leaves an enormous number of ports, some important, some of lesser importance, that the Committee did not have the time to visit and report upon.
According to Clause 1, the Ports Council is to have the responsibility for formulating comprehensive plans for all the existing ports and for the provision of new ones. That surely will be a task big enough for a full-time board, working quite a long time into the future. Yet we were told in Committee that it was the intention of the Ports Council to have monthly meetings. How much work can be done by a part-time board having monthly meetings, with 350 ports under its control, a large number of which have not yet been visited and investigated? How many years will it take the members of the Council to get round to all the ports which will be submitting plans and suggestions for their own improvement?
It has been stressed that the ports will have to rely very largely on their own initiative, enterprise and energy in submitting plans to the Ports Council for their continued life or for improvement. If those plans or suggestions are to receive serious consideration, how can it be given by a body meeting only monthly? It will, therefore, have to rely on its permanent secretariat for any reports that it considers.
I hope that the Minister will take the question of the Ports Council and its duties, as laid down in Clause 1, really seriously, and see that it has effective machinery for carrying the burden which he is placing upon it.

Mr. W. Griffiths: I do not doubt that both sides of the House will agree that the case made by my hon. Friends on the range and complexity of the duties placed upon the Ports Council is manifest in the terms of the Bill. There is no doubt about the range of its responsibilities. The Minister would be the last to deny that. The nub of the argument is how best these responsibilities can be carried out by the people charged by the Minister with that task. I wonder sometimes, having sat through the Committee stage of the Bill and tried to understand the debates that took place in the House previously, and having read the Rochdale Committee's Report, just


how seriously the Government are about seeing that this Ports Council is a success.
Let me remind the House of what happened in the early stages in Committee on the Bill. Apprehensions were expressed on both sides about the possibility that the Ports Council would interfere in a destructive manner with the functions of the harbour authorities. This brings me to the question of how serious the Government are in seeing a successful Council. When we were discussing whether we should have full-time members, the Parliamentary Secretary said that apprehensions have been expressed in the earlier stages of the Committee that there would be undue interference by the Council with the harbour authorities.
How much more likely it would be, he said, if we had full-time professionals that we would have that kind of interference of which some members of the Committee wished the harbour authorities to be relieved. I am suspicious of sentiments of that kind, because I feel that they imply that the Government might not be serious about making the Ports Council an effective instrument of policy.
After all, if we are all agreed that the range of obligations placed upon the Council is substantial, does anybody think that there are easily available people of quality over the diverse fields referred to in the Rochdale Report who can really discharge these responsibilities as a part-time job? The time of the amateur, whether it be at Lords, in the House of Commons, in industry, in nationalised industry or in bodies of this character, is past.
We shall listen to the Minister with great interest. We did not hear much of him in Committee, but he is here today. I hope that he will try to persuade us that it is possible to discharge this enormous responsibility and that it may be done by the part-timer, by the amateur. My hon. Friends and I are extremely sceptical about that. Anyhow, we believe that if one chooses an amateur, whether in politics or in industry, the field is necessarily limited. We ought to have the people who are best qualified, in the terms of the Rochdale Report, to discharge these responsibilities.

Mr. Silkin: I associate myself with the views of my hon. Friends on this Amendment. It is wise, at this stage, that we should see what the real difference between the two sides is at this moment. The fact is that the Opposition are not suggesting that every member of the National Ports Council should be on a permanent full-time basis. We know that there is to be a permanent staff. We understand that perfectly. We are merely asking that out of 11 members of the Council three shall be appointed on a full-time basis.
Even that three is cut down, because the Rochdale Committee, in paragraph 148, suggested that the director-general should have a seat on the board, and he is, of course, a full-time permanent member. So the difference now between us is only two. We suggest that, of the two, one should be the chairman. This is not a very unreasonable request to make. When we consider what was said by the Parliamentary Secretary in Committee, it would seem that we were asking for the earth. We are not. We are merely asking for two further permanent full-time members on the Council.

Mr. Mellish: Perhaps the Minister could clarify this point. The director-general will not, of course, be a member of the Council. He will be one of the staff. We must get this clear.

Mr. Marples: I would put it this way, that he may or may not be a member of the Council. He can be, but it depends on the arrangements.

Mr. Hoy: May we get this quite clear? The director-general has not yet been appointed and is not among the list of appointees. Is it not the case that the present director-general has not been appointed in this capacity?

Mr. Marples: That is true. But I was trying to assist the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish). It seems that I always get into difficulties when I do that. But the hon. Member for Bermondsey asked a question. There is nothing in the Bill as it is that would prevent the director-general being a member of the Council. That is what I wanted to say, and I hope that I have made the situation clear.

Mr. Silkin: I am grateful for those observations because they add a great


deal to my argument at this stage. The fact is that the Rochdale Committee itself suggested that the director-general should have a seat on the board, and it is i interesting to know that the Ministers apparently at this moment quite unaware whether the director-general will have a seat on the board or not.
In Committee, the Parliamentary Secretary argued that the Government wanted the Council to be outward-looking and not inward-looking, and he was afraid that if there was a permanent group of directors on the Council they might lose some of their advisory faculties and become rather more executive. That might well be true if we were thinking that all the members of the Council were to be permanent and full-time. But we are not. We are suggesting that three members of the Council should be full-time.
This would merely give continuity in the Council. It allows one to have all the other members possessing part-time membership and coming from various widely diffused experiences and skills. With this idea we are very much in sympathy. The reason why we want continuity and permanence is shown by the Report of the Rochdale Committee, which says that it would be of the utmost importance to attract men of high standing with a varying background of experience.
The Committee states, in paragraph 148:
We must stress that the success of the Authority in gaining the confidence and cooperation of the industry and in pursuing a logical and determined course of port development and planning will depend largely on the quality of its Board members and staff, and, in particular, on the quality of its Chairman and Director.
In other words, we must have a very strong Council if we are to have the industry running well and if we are to gain the enthusiastic support of the harbour authorities and all those engaged in the operations.
I know that, in Committee, the Parliamentary Secretary said that there was nothing to stop us having full-time members. He said that it had been the practice over the past 12 years or so not to make this a statutory obligation. But the Government are proposing to do something new here. They are

bringing into being a new concept of our ports and harbours, and it seems to me that if they are going to do that they must start as they mean to continue. They must gain the sympathy and understanding of those who will be engaged in running the harbours right from the very first moment. One can do this, it seems to me, by saying that one is very serious about this.
I have no doubt that the members of the Council will be the most highly-qualified people that the Minister can find, but I believe that it is right that it should be understood right from the start that they are to do a full-time job. The Rochdale Committee talked about all members being appointed on a part-time basis, but it made a distinction even there when it said that the chairman, on the other hand, would naturally be expected to devote a substantial amount of time to the work. We know that the chairman will be devoting a substantial amount of time to the work.
I would say that in the case of the chairman, as in the case of the two other members about whom we are speaking, this should be a full-time appointment. It seems to me that there is not all that much difference in principle between us if both sides of the House are determined that the harbour industry shall, in future, be run as well, as efficiently and in as up-to-date a manner as possible.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Marples: The hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King) put his finger on the point when he said that this is something about which, in Committee, there was a head-on clash of views. I believe that the Opposition sincerely hold to their view that this Amendment should be written into the Statute and that, whether the Minister thinks it right or not and whether the duties turn out to be less than require it, there should be a provision for having three full-time members written into the Bill.
I disagree with hon. Members opposite. First, as the hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin) said, in Committee my hon. and gallant Friend said that there is nothing in the wording of the Clause to prevent the Minister appointing the chairman or other members of


the council as full-time members if it should prove necessary or desirable in the light of experience.
When the Bill becomes an Act, it will probably fall to be put into operation by the next Government. I say this to show that it is not a question of my being awkward, because it is possible that someone else will use these powers. There are a number of precedents of statutes setting up certain bodies, and none of them contains a requirement that the chairman or any other member shall be full-time. But we have appointed full-time members where it has proved necessary for the business.
The iron and Steel Board and the British Railways Board have no provision that there should be a full-time chairman, but we have a full-time chairman and more than three full-time members, because it is necessary. Surely, it is necessary to see what the nature of the task is and then, if necessary, to appoint members full-time.
The hon. Member for Deptford, whose father was a solicitor of great authority, has never, I will gamble, formed a public or a private limited company and inserted in its articles the number of full-time and part-time members of the board, because he would not know the nature of the business and how it would develop. I have never known it to be done.
The National Coal Board is another example where there is no requirement for a full-time chairman, but we have Lord Robens as its full-time Chairman. Other examples are the Atomic Energy Authority, the Docks Board, the Gas Council, the Cotton Board and the White Fish Authority.
I hold these views both from personal experience in private life and from my experience in my present job, and I hold them as sincerely as hon. Members opposite hold theirs. I think that the Minister of the day should have the necessary flexibility to make members full-time or part-time according to the way he thinks things are going. It is difficult at this stage to say why there should be three full-time members but not four. Why not two? On what scientific basis and evidence should we decide that three is sacrosanct? It is very difficult to know what is the reason.

I want to make another distinction—

Mr. Jeger: Could the right hon. Gentleman perhaps tell us why he himself has fixed that the Council shall consist of between seven and 11 members? How did he arrive at that figure?

Mr. Marples: From my experience of the other nationalised industries. That is why I left a margin. I did not say nine or 10, but between seven and 11. That is exactly the sort of flexibility we want. I am very grateful to the hon. Member for assisting me in the matter.

Mr. Mellish: Of course, we could easily put in the words "at least three" if that would get the right hon. Gentleman out of his trouble.

Mr. Marples: No, it would not, because there is no basis for the hon. Gentleman saying three. It may be that more than three or less than three are needed, or none at all.
I want to point out that the National Ports Council is not to be an executive body running an industry. That is where the analogy drawn by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy) is wrong. He talked about the Port of London Authority in this connection. Bat the Ports Council will not be managing a particular port as the Port of London Authority does from day to day. The Opposition made great play in Committee with the fact that it was not the Council's function to be responsible for day-to-day management.
The primary business of the Council will be to come to decisions on matters of policy, the material for which has been prepared by the director-general and his full-time start The point is that if I am proved wrong about the number, then the matter can be put right by my successor. or even by myself, if we win the next General Election with the same majority as we had at the last. Therefore, we have the option. Our hands are not tied. We are not fettered or rigid; we are flexible.
I am wondering, as a matter of fact, whether hon Members opposite are really as confident as they would wish us to believe that they will win the next election. If they do, they could make the number three or four. Therefore, there is no point in pressing the Amend


ment. If they press it, it will show that they are not as confident as they say they are. I ask hon. Members opposite not to press this point, because it is a fundamental difference of opinion.
Another difficulty which I have found during my four years or so at my present Ministry—

Mr. Mellish: Too long.

Mr. Marples: It is not too long; indeed, another four years would be suitable.
As I was saying, I have found during my four years or so at the Ministry of Transport that it is not easy to attract to the nationalised industries men of the right quality. There are many reasons for this. The first is that, generally speaking, we cannot offer them the financial attraction and inducement which private enterprise gives to its top management. [An HON. MEMBER: "Dr. Beeching."] Dr. Beeching is an exception which proves the rule. He is the only man in the country who has had a wage freeze for five years because, had he stayed at I.C.I., he would have received an increase in remuneration.
I have had a great deal of difficulty, first, on the financial point and, secondly, because a number of people in private life do not wish to get dragged into the controversy which necessarily surrounds public life. I think that I have made more appointments to nationalised industries in the last few years than any other Minister, and I know the difficulties that I have had. I know that Lord Rochdale would not and could not be a full-time member. He will devote the majority of his time to the National Ports Council, but his other commitments are such that he must retain an interest in certain things because they have been part of his life.
Therefore, we run up against the difficulty that he will only be able to devote the major portion of his time to the Council. But he is a very able man and I would be very loath not to have him as chairman, because he is passionately desirous of making the job a success and has the background of knowledge which he acquired as Chairman of the Rochdale Committee. I think from the country's point of view that his is an admirable appointment.
It will be difficult to get the people we want if we make the job a full-time one, but if that is necessary, then we can try. After all, the Minister of the day can decide to make people full-time if he so wishes. The party opposite can do this if it wishes should it win the election by any chance, which is most unlikely. Then hon. Members opposite could have three, four or two full-time members.
It would be wrong to attach such rigid conditions to any business before it is floated because, as it grows or declines, the requirements are different. Therefore, to write a rigid figure into the Bill for full-time members would be wrong. I am quite certain that I shall not convince hon. Members opposite in this matter. I believe that what I have now said is true in the same way as I believe that hon. Members opposite are sincere in what they have said.

Mr. Hoy: What the right hon. Gentleman has proved, if anything, is that we made very good progress in Committee because he was not there. We cannot all hedge our bets like the Minister. The right hon. Gentleman is very good at covering up. I remember that when he left his own business he said, "I have got rid of my shares, but, having done so, if I ever cease to be a Minister I have taken the precaution of having the option to repurchase them when I get out."

Mr. Marples: That is not true, as I think that the hon. Gentleman, who is normally extremely fair, will agree if he will look at the statement which I made. I have no right to acquire these shares. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw what he said.

Mr. Hoy: If the right hon. Gentleman assures me that he did not take that precaution, then I will willingly withdraw my statement.

Mr. Marples: I think that the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) will remember that it was made quite clear in the statement that I had no right to buy back those shares.

Mr. Hoy: There is nothing to prevent the right hon. Gentleman from getting the shares back. That is as far as I will go today. I do not want to take the


matter too far, but only to comment on it and to say that we have not all got that opportunity.
The right hon. Gentleman will have great difficulty in convincing the House and the country that, if the Government choose to pay £24,000 a year to a man, it is for his part-time services. I am sure that no hon. Member would try to argue that anyone receiving £500 a week from the Government was being paid for a part-time job. This really is an extravagant use of language by the right hon. Gentleman. He may be saying that a principle has not been laid down, hut we expect him to lay it down.
The right hon. Gentleman says that we argue like this because we do not know exactly what the Ports Council will have to do. But we do know what it will do. The Rochdale Committee was appointed to find out what needed to be done to bring our ports up to date and, as a result of its Report, the new Council is to come into existence. We believe that, if the Council is to undertake the job we want it to do, there should be three full time members.
The right hon. Gentleman went on to distort my argument. Tories plead for fair play for themselves and then always seek to distort the arguments of their opponents. I did not use Europort as an example of management in comparing it with the Ports Council. I pointed out that this one port in Europe was having £75 million spent on it to fit it for the trade and industry ahead. I reminded the House that, under the Bill, we are providing only £50 million—which may be doubled by Resolution of the House—for the whole country and that the

Ports Council, working in a part-time capacity, is to supervise the spending. I did not compare the managements of single ports.

5.15 p.m.

The right hon. Gentleman knows that each of our ports will have its own management committee. We do not intend to substitute the Ports Council for the Port of London Authority, or for any otter port authority. It was not worthy of him to distort our argument. He would have done better to have argued against our proposition.

We believe that if the Ports Council is to supervise the rehabilitation of our ports then it is essential that it should include those members prepared to give their full time to the job. That is not asking too much. We cannot afford delay. It is important to get on with the job quickly if we are to hold our own against competitors overseas.

It is for that reason that speed is essential from the beginning. It may be, once the schemes are working, that in the course of time we may not require three full-time members of the Ports Council, but it is essential at the beginning, if the work is to be done efficiently and speedily, that there should be no delay and that three members should devote their full time to the work. The Minister's argument was entirely unsatisfactory to its and, for that reason, we shall show our dissent in the Division Lobby.

Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 180, Noes 228.

Division No. 34.]
AYES
[5.16 p.m.


Albu, Austen
Brockway, A. Fenner
Duffy, A. E. P. (Colne Valley)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Ede, Rt. Hon. C.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)


Awbery, Stan (Bristol, Central)
Callaghan, James
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Carmichael, Neil
Edwards, Walter (Stepney)


Barnett, Guy
Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Evans, Albert


Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Chapman, Donald
Fitch, Alan


Boaney, Alan
Cliffe, Michael
Fletcher, Eric


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Collick, Percy
Foley, Maurice


Benn, Anthony Wedgwood
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Cronin, John
Forman, J. C.


Benson, Sir George
Crosland, Anthony
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)


Blackburn, F.
Dalyell, Tam
Galpern, Sir Myer


Blyton, William
Darling, George
Ginsburg, David


Boardman, H.
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Gourlay, Harry


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics, S.W.)
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Grey, Charles


Bowles, Frank
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)


Boyden, James
Deer, George
Griffiths, W. (Exchange)


Bradley, Tom
Dempsey, James
Gunter, Ray


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Dodds, Norman
Hamilton, William (West Fife)




Hannan, William
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)


Harper, Joseph
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Ross, William


Hayman, F. H.
Manuel, Archie
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Healey, Denis
Mapp, Charles
Silkin, John


Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)
Marsh, Richard
Silverman, Julies (Aston)


Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Mason, Roy
Skeffington, Arthur


Hilton, A. V.
Mellish, R. J.
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Holman, Percy
Mendelson, J. J.
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Holt, Arthur
Millan, Bruce
Small, William


Hooson, H. E.
Milne, Edward
Snow, Julian


Houghton, Douglas
Mitchison, G. R.
Sorensen, R. W,


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Monslow, Walter
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Hoy, James H.
Moody, A. S.
Spriggs, Leslie


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Morris, Charles (Openshaw)
Steele, Thomas


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Moyle, Arthur
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Hunter, A. E.
Mulley, Frederick
Stonehouse, John


Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Neal, Harold
Stones, William


Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Strauss, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Vauxhall)


Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)
Stross, Sir Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)


Janner, Sir Barnett
O'Malley, B. K.
Taverne, D.


Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Owen, Will
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Jeger, George
Panned, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)


Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Parker, John
Thomson, C. M. (Dundee. E.)


Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech(Wakefield)
Parkin, B. T.
Thornton, Ernest


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Pavitt, Laurence
Thorpe, Jeremy


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Tomney, Frank


Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Pentland, Norman
Wainwright, Edwin


Kelley, Richard
Popplewell, Ernest
Warbey, William


Kenyon, Clifford
Prentice, R. E.
Whitlock, William


King, Dr. Horace
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Wilkins, W. A.


Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Probert, Arthur
Willey, Frederick


Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Randall, Harry
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Lipton, Marcus
Rankin, John
Winterbottom, R. E.


Lubbock, Eric
Redhead, E. C.
Woof, Robert


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Rhodes, H.
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


McBride, N.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Zilliacus, K.


McCann, John
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)



Mackie, John (Enfield, East)
Robertson, John (Paisley)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


McLeavy, Frank
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Mr. Rogers and Mr. Lawson




NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Harvie Anderson, Miss


Allason, James
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Hastings, Stephen


Anderson, D. C
Costain, A. P.
Hay, John


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Coulson, Michael
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel


Atkins, Humphrey
Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Henderson, John (Cathcart)


Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)
Critchley, Julian
Hiley, Joseph


Barber, Anthony
Cunningham, Knox
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)


Barlow, Sir John
Dalkeith, Earl of
Hirst, Geoffrey


Barter, John
Dance, James
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Quintin


Batsford, Brian
d'Avigdor - Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Holland, Philip


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Hollingworth, John


Bidgood, John C.
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Hopkins, Alan


Biffen, John
Duncan, Sir James
Hornby, R. P.


Biggs-Davison, John
Duthie, Sir William (Banff)
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives)


Bishop, Sir Patrick
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Howard, John (Southampton, Test)


Black, Sir Cyril
Errington, Sir Eric
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John


Bossom, Hon. Clive
Farey-Jones, F. W.
Hughes-Young, Michael


Bourne-Arton, A.
Farr, John
Hulbert, Sir Norman


Box, Donald
Finlay, Graeme
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Braine, Bernard
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Brewis, John
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Jackson, John


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
James, David


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, Central)
Jennings, J. C.


Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)


Bullard, Denys
Glover, Sir Douglas
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Glyn, Dr. Afan (Clapham)
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)


Burden, F. A.
Goodhart, Philip
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Goodhew, Victor
Kerby, Capt. Henry


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Gower, Raymond
Kerr, Sir Hamilton


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Grant-Ferris, R.
Kershaw, Anthony


Carr, Rt. Hon. Robert (Mitcham)
Green, Alan
Kirk, Peter


Cary, Sir Robert
Gresham Cooke, R.
Kitson, Timothy


Channon, H. P. G.
Grosvenor, Lord Robert
Lambton, Viscount


Chataway, Christopher
Gurden, Harold
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Sir Winston
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Lindsay, Sir Martin


Cleaver, Leonard
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Linstead, Sir Hugh


Cole, Norman
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Litchfield, Capt. John


Cooke, Robert
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)


Cooper, A. E.
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Longden, Gilbert







McAdden, Sir Stephen
Pitt, Dame Edith
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Mac Arthur, Ian
Pounder, Rafton
Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)


McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch
Thomas, Peter (Conway)


Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Thompson, Sir Kenneth (Walton)


Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute &amp; N. Ayrs)
Prior, J, M. L.
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Maddan, Martin
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. Peter


Maginnis, John E.
Pym, Francis
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Maitland, Sir John
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Markham, Major Sir Frank
Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. Sir Peter
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Marples, Fit. Hon. Ernest
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon


Marshall, Sir Douglas
Rees, Hugh (Swansea, W.)
Turner, Colin


Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Renton, Rt. Hon. David
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Mawby, Ray
Ridsdale, Julian
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)
Vane, W. M. F.


Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Russell, Sir Ronald
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Mills, Stratton
Shaw, M.
Vickers, Miss Joan


Miscampbell, Norman
Skeet, T. H. H.
Walker, Peter


Montgomery, Fergus
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)
Wall, Patrick


More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Spearman, Sir Alexander
Ward, Dame Irene


Morgan, William
Speir, Rupert
Webster, David


Morrison, John
Stainton, Keith
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Stanley, Hon. Richard
Whitelaw, William


Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Stevens, Geoffrey
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Nicholson, Sir Godfrey
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard
Stodart, J. A.
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Oakshott, Sir Hendrie
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Storey, Sir Samuel
Wise, A. R.


Osborn, John (Hallam)
Studholme, Sir Henry
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Summers, Sir Spencer
Woodhouse, C. M.


Page, John (Harrow, West)
Tapsell, Peter
Woodnutt, Mark


Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Worsley, Marcus


Partridge, E.
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)



Peel, John
Taylor, Sir William (Bradford, N.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Teeling, Sir William
Mr. McLaren and Mr. R. W. Elliott.


Pitman, Sir James
Temple, John M.

Amendment made: In page 2, line 23 after "and", insert "to have".—[Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett.]

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I beg to move, in page 2, line 26 after "workers", to insert:
to have wide experience as persons employed in doing work falling to be done in the course of the management of harbours or the carrying out of harbour operations and to have shown capacity as persons so employed".

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir William Anstruther-Gray): With this Amendment it will also be convenient to discuss the following Amendment: In page 2, line 30 at the end to insert:
and shall include at least one person appearing to the Minister to have had experience and shown capacity in an organisation of workers connected with the dock industry".

Mr. Mellish: Do I understand that we shall be able to divide on our own Amendment if we so require?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Yes, certainly.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: My intention is to speak only on the Government Amendment, because, although both Amendments refer to membership of the Council, there is the important difference that my Amendment fulfils an assurance which I gave in Standing

Committee that a form of words would be found to extend the qualifications for membership of the Council to include persons having experience of employment in harbours. The Amendment therefore provides for persons having experience of work falling to be done in the carrying out of harbour operations as well as work done by harbour authorities to be eligible for appointment.
I can anticipate one question which I may be asked by hon. Members opposite and say that we have taken legal advices and that there is no doubt that this wording covers dockers who will therefore be fully qualified for membership of the Council.

Mr. Mellish: I move my Amendment and say that we obviously prefer our wording—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The orderly way to do this is to wait until we have dealt with the first Amendment and then there will be every opportunity for the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) to move his Amendment. He may discus it now.

Mr. Mellish: We are again obliged to the Parliamentary Secretary for going a long way to meet what we asked for


in Committee. In discussing the membership of the Council, we have to pay close attention to the membership of the Advisory Panel, because when the National Ports Council is appointed, I should be very surprised if those who are now working on the Advisory Panel are not appointed to full membership of the Council.
I make it clear that what I have to say is in no way a criticism of the individuals concerned. We recognise them to be men of high quality and I have no doubt that they will do a first-class job under Lord Rochdale to the best of their ability. However, in spite of what has been said by the Rochdale Committee and in spite of Government assurances that they were looking for men with wide experience and without specially vested interests in the dock and shipping industries, we feel that there is a tremendous weight of people who have what I call an employer's interest. I think that we have moved from the day long ago when it might have been said of us that we believed that anyone coming from the employer's side was not as qualified as anybody else, but the fact remains that we have connections with the Elder Dempster and Stag lines and so on, which is all right and proper, but which is employer's experience. We believe that on the Council there should be someone with expert knowledge of the dock industry itself.
5.30 p.m.
The name of Mr. Lewis Wright has been mentioned as being appointed to represent the trade union side on the National Ports Council. As I said in Committee, Mr. Wright is a fine person, and I am sure that he will do a first-class job. But he is the general secretary of the Weavers' Association. I have no doubt that it will not take him long to acquire all the necessary knowledge of shipping and the docks, and I am sure that he has a wide knowledge, apart from matters affecting his own trade union. I have no objection to his being a member of the Council. But we want to ensure that there will be somebody on the Council who has come straight from the organisations representing the dock workers.
I have no vested interest in the matter, for myself, or on behalf of my trade union, or any individual in it. I am not concerned who is appointed from the dock workers' trade unions. But the Minister must remember that we are dealing with an industry with a bitter past. It wants to forget it, but at times it cannot. We must therefore ensure that the Council is capable of earning the support of those who work in the industry—the dock employees. They want to know that upon the Council there is somebody who knows them and understands their point of view.
The National Dock Labour Board scheme has been a success because, when Ernest Bevin and, later, George Isaacs, promoted it, it was thought essential that the Board should have on it men who came direct from the industry, and that that principle should operate right down the line, even to the disciplinary committees. There used to be a school of thought which held that it was a good thing to have people outside the industry concerned—people who did not have any particular vested interest in the industry. In fact, that is why I object to some of the present nominees for the Council. It was thought that, especially from the trade union point of view, it might be a good thing not to have a dock workers' representative.
But history has shown that it is necessary to have someone whom the dockers can trust and respect. I am sure that those dock workers would be the first bitterly to oppose any Dock Labour Board scheme in which there was no trade union representation. They realise that even on questions of discipline one of their own members should be represented on the body concerned.
That is why, in good faith, we suggested to the Minister that the Council, in order to gain the good will of the men—and it must do that, because in its long-term planning it may decide that certain harbours or a certain dock should close, and this will result in some redundancy and alteration—somebody on the Council must be able to sell its ideas to the men. Who is that to be? Is it to be Lord Rochdale? I do not think so. Is it to be Mr. Lewis Wright, of the Weavers' Association? I do not think so. I should have thought that


it was essential to have a man who has come from one of the unions of dock workers—a man who understands the arguments and who can sell those arguments to the men.
If we want the Council to do a good job it is surely not asking too much to accept our Amendment, which makes it clear that there will be representation of the dock workers' unions on the Council. At the moment, only seven members have been appointed. There is scope for more, and I want the Minister to accept our Amendment. I must tell him that we feel strongly about this—strongly enough to take the matter to a division. The fact that we shall lose in the end does not matter; we shall have registered our protest. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will reconsider the question. If he does so, I am sure that he will be allowed to withdraw his Amendment in favour of ours.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: There is one point that I should like to clarify. The hon. Member twice referred to the Opposition's form of wording as opposed to the Government's. We have never regarded these two Amendments as alternatives. Neither were they considered so in Committee. Our Amendment leaves no doubt that people employed in humbler positions in the docks will be eligible for membership, but the form of words used in the Opposition's Amendment is a term of art which specifically provides for trade union representation.

Mr. Mellish: We were asked to discuss both Amendments together. It might have been easier to have had separate debates. We shall not oppose the Government Amendment, but we think that the words in our Amendment should also be added. Therefore, our Amendment should also be supported.

Dr. King: This is becoming rather a complex debate. We are discussing two Amendments which are germane to each other, in a way, but which are really very different. The first one has been moved by the Minister in furtherance of a promise made in Committee that membership of the Council would be open to the humblest docker. The second Amendment demands something that the Minister has not yet offered, namely, the appoint

ment to the Council of trade unionists with experience in the organisation of dock workers.
It may seem a little ungracious of me to raise what may be, in the last analysis, merely a drafting point. I appreciate the skill of the draftsmen. Some of us have said critical things about them in Committee, but they have usually been right. But we are now discussing the qualifications of members of the Council, and the field from which they can be drawn. The Government Amendment inserts, after "workers", and as a new set of qualifications, persons who have
wide experience as persons employed in doing work Jailing to be done in the course of the management of harbours…
But in subsection (2) we already have a reference to
persons appearing to the Minister to have wide experience of, and to have shown capacity in, tie management of harbours…
To my mind, both provisions seem to mean the same thing.
We want to include as persons eligible for membership people who are not necessarily managers. My hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin), who dealt with this Amendment in Committee, said:
It does not necessarily follow that because a man was once a dock labourer he will have a sectional interest…whereas as if he was concerned in the management of a harbour he could be impartial and unbiased.'—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee F, 21st January, 1964; c. 136.]
We want this to be a career open to talent and we want to feel—and I know that the Parliamentary Secretary is with us on this—that dock workers should be among dose eligible for membership of the Council. By his wording the Minister is trying to give us that. Indeed, the Parliamentary Secretary conceded the principle during the Committee stage discussions. But the wording to which I have referred seems to be tied to managerial levels. It is true that the Amendment goes on
…or the carrying out of harbour operations and to have shown capacity as persons so employed".
I should have thought that one reference to "managerial" was sufficient, and that the Amendment which the Minister has moved to meet the point which we raised during the Committee


stage discussions meets that point; but that it also carries with it some unnecessary words which the Minister might think of taking out.
We regard the Amendment which we are discussing with this Amendment as one of the most important to the Bill. I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) is present. I hope that he will take part in this debate. Again we seek to strengthen the Council. The Minister realises the importance of having a trade unionist on the Council because one has been appointed. There is no doubt that, like any managerial body in the world designed to do a complex job of managing or advising industry, the Council should include a member with trade union experience. We need not argue that all over again. I would merely comment that we sought to have that written into the Bill as a statutory obligation but the Minister would not accept the obligation. He has carried it out, however, by appointing one.
Dock workers are a group apart. They have loyalties to each other as deep as those of the miners. In almost every way their work differs from other industries. The difficulty of achieving complete decasualisation shows how different is their work. I have some knowledge of the dock workers in my own city, a knowledge gained from over forty years of very close contact with them. But I confess frankly that I know little about dock workers compared with the amount of knowledge possessed by my hon. Friends the Members for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) and Stepney (Mr. W. Edwards), both of whom worked in the trade union organisation of the dock workers before becoming hon. Members of this House. I believe that if we are to carry both sides of this great industry with us, there must be a member of the Council who is not merely a trade unionist but knows the point of view of the dock workers and who, I would say almost literally, could talk to them from time to time in their own language.
I hope that we shall be able to persuade the Minister of this. Having accepted our first point, that being a dock worker does not debar a man from being eligible—if qualified by experience, quality, character, ability and the rest—to come on to the Council, we

hope that the Minister will concede the second point, that there should be a dockers' trade union leader on the Council.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. E. Shinwell: My only reason for intervening in this debate is because I regard this Amendment as having a distinct bearing on the democratic processes common to public utility undertakings. I shall be very surprised if the Minister declines to accept it, because if he does that would be running counter to what appears in previous legislation connected with nationalised industries and other public utility undertakings.
I had some experience of this when I was called on to introduce legislation designed to nationalise the mines and the electricity supply authority. It occurred to me—indeed, representations were made to me by the organisations of the workers in those industries—that there should be representation from the trade unions which organised the workers in them. If the Minister will consult the legislation—in the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act, 1946, it appears in Section 46, I do not recall which Section in the other legislation—he will discover that on the creation of the boards of control several persons were appointed, including the chairman—I think I can quote the actual words:
…to represent substantial proportions of the persons
engaged in the industry. That is quite specific. In this case where an Amendment has been submitted there appear the following words which are of course familiar to the Minister. He has been piloting this Bill through its various stages and will be much more familiar with them than I, because to be frank it was only this afternoon that I took the opportunity to look at the Bill—

Mr. Mellish: The Minister was not seen during the Committee stage proceedings and that was why they were so successful.

Mr. Shinwell: I was not aware of that. But, even though it is so, with respect to my hon. Friend, I would acquit the Minister of any discourtesy. It does happen that Cabinet Ministers cannot always find it possible to attend the sittings of Standing Committees. We


know the right hon. Gentleman is a man of considerable activity and resource—sometimes we think more resource than activity—but undoubtedly he is a man of parts. His various preoccupations and occupations entitle him to apply himself to that particular activity which calls for his immediate attention.
May I quote the words to which I have already referred which appear in Clause 1(5):
The members of the Council shall be appointed from amongst persons appearing to the Minister to have wide experience of, and shown capacity in, the management of harbours, shipping, inland transport, industrial, commercial, financial or economic matters, applied science or the organisation of workers…".
Those words follow very closely the words that are contained in the legislation to which I have referred, but there is a considerable difference between representation from an organisation of workers and, as the Amendment in the names of my hon. Friends denotes, which provides for representation specifically from an organisation of workers employed in the industry.
We know what has happened on several occasions when boards of management have been created, public corporations and the like. Representatives from the Trades Union Congress have been appointed, but not necessarily specifically from the unions engaged in a particular industry. That is occasionally desirable. It is part of the democratic process, but it is even more democratic and more desirable, and in my view more essential, when we are dealing with a particular range of industry to have direct and specific representation from the organisation primarily concerned with the industry.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, lichen (Dr. King) spoke about the peculiar activities of dock labourers. Many years ago—more years ago than I sometimes care to remember, back in 1911 and 1912, which is a long time ago, and for many years afterwards—I was associated with dock labourers in almost every harbour and port of the country. I know a great deal about the peculiarities of dock labourers. They are almost a class by themselves, much more so than are miners. They are very clannish, even more clannish in relation to particular ports and harbours in which,

I was going to say they reside—many of them reside in districts contiguous to docks and harbours.
In some of the London docks the work is quite different from the work in the docks of Liverpool. Even on the Clyde, with which I was familiar many years ago, what happens in the Princes Dock may be quite different from what happens in the Rothesay Dock. In ports on the Bristol Channel, where there is a great deal of tramp trade, the work again is quite different. It is extremely important that this peculiar knowledge, this specialised knowledge, should be available to the National Ports Council.
I beg of the right hon. Gentleman to consider this matter. I can understand his desire to bring in somebody associated with the general body of workers' organisations. If he appoints someone to the National Ports Council who is associated with the textile industry—

Mr. Mellish: He has done so. He has appointed Mr. Lewis Wright, the general secretary of the Weavers' Association. He is a very honourable man, but we want a trade unionist who knows all about docks.

Mr. Shinwell: I have not the acquaintance of Mr. Wright, but I accept what my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) says. No doubt. Mr. Wright has considerable knowledge of weaving and the textile industry, but there is no clear relationship between the textile industry and the dock labour industry so far as I know, although I have no doubt that the ingenuity and fertile mind of the Minister could devise something for our edification.
Someone who is connected with the coal mining industry might be appointed. Now and again officials of the National Union of Mineworkers are called upon to retire and subsequently appointed to posts in public utility undertakings. I take no exception to that, but it is much more useful to have someone who understands dock labour, someone who, perhaps, has worked in the docks and is acquainted with the peculiarities of dock labour. I should go so far as to say—although I do not want to be misunderstood—that there should be someone who can talk to the dockers in their own language, or perhaps translate dockers' language for the benefit of the National Ports Council.
All these are considerations which in my judgment have some weight. I hope they have some weight with the right hon. Gentleman. I know that on occasion he can be very accommodating. He has a generous mind when he is inclined in that direction. I hope that on this occasion he will realise as a democrat that he must assist in the democratic process of bringing in people who understand the realities of particular industries and at the same time that he will seek the view of people in the particular industry with which we are concerned.
If he has not gone too far already in the direction of appointments, I hope he will give the matter rather more mature consideration and appoint someone from the unions associated with dock labour which will satisfy the workers in the industry and not prove to be disadvantageous to somebody who would like to be appointed on the Council but who for rather sound reasons is left outside.

Mr. Ede: I support the Amendment in the names of my hon. Friends because of the experiences I had some years ago when on occasion I found myself in office having some disputes with the dockers about the continuation of their labour. Dockers live in a very segregated community. I do not think that many people would live in the area unless they were dockers. They have a long history of solidarity and faith in their leadership. In that, they are very much like miners. People would not live in a mining village unless they were connected with mining.
My experience was that the most important thing was to be able to negotiate with someone whom the dockers trust and who from the dockers' experience can explain to people who have been brought up in a different environment exactly what the docker feels and why he feels it. Therefore, I think that this Amendment is a very important one if this great industry is to be carried on with a feeling of mutual respect between the new Council and the people employed in the docks.
I heard an hon. Member talk about "the humblest docker". I have never met a humble one. What the humblest one is like I cannot imagine. They are

men who are proud of their calling. Although dock work is generally classed as unskilled, it is, in fact, very highly skilled. Dock workers have a right to feel proud of being able to discharge their obligations efficiently. We should not underrate their capacity for feeling collectively and finding people who can express their collective view so that it can be understood even in the most dignified quarters.
I therefore sincerely hope that the Minister will accept the Amendment and get this great industry, under its new framework, started in conditions in which he has the right to expect that he will receive the co-operation of all concerned. If he can get that at the price of accepting this Amendment, I assure him that he will do a great deal for peace and continuous employment in this industry.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Jeger: I hope that the Minister will have second thoughts about the Amendment. I have a feeling that if the right hon. Gentleman were suddenly called to a Cabinet meeting, or up the M.1 or something spectacular like that, the Parliamentary Secretary would be much more amenable to reason. He showed himself in Committee to be far more ready to accept our Amendments than did the Minister. If hon. Members look at the Bill as amended and the number of our Amendments which were accepted by the Parliamentary Secretary, they will find that it will take them and him a long time to count them.
I draw the Minister's attention to the fact that there are 156 Amendments for consideration today, most of which implement promises made by the Parliamentary Secretary in Committee. Of the 156 Amendments which we are considering today, 127 are Government Amendments, which points to the fact that our arguments in Committee were effective. The Amendments which we suggested, even if they were not in the correct wording according to the Parliamentary draftsmen, contained the right ideas. Most of the 127 Government Amendments are designed to bring our Amendments in Committee on to the Statute Book.

Mr. David Webster: And our Amendments.

Mr. Hoy: Only one.

Mr. Jeger: I think that one Amendment emanated from the hon. Member. I recall that when we put down Amendments to which he gave his verbal support, he abstained from voting.
The right hon. Gentleman is being a little stubborn about this. I ask him to look at the situation in the nationalised industries and other industries which have been taken over in one way or another. There is always a little teething trouble in any new organisation, and the workers are always suspicious, quite rightly, because of the difficulties which they have had over so many years. They are always suspicious unless they can rely on somebody expressing their point of view on the new board of directors or the new council or whichever body is to take charge of that section of the industry.
If the right hon. Gentleman will include on the Ports Council someone in whom the workers in the industry have faith and confidence, he will go a long way to ensuring that the redevelopment and reorganisation which is to take place will take place with the consent, co-operation and good will of the workers in the industry. That is what we want and this is one way of achieving it. With the record which we have behind us in the Committee proceedings of constructive Amendments and suggestions which we have made, most of which have been accepted, I ask him to consider whether he would not be wise to accept this Amendment, too.

Mr. Ernest Thornton: I will not detain the House for more than a few minutes. I rise only because of the implied criticism of the appointment of a weaver to the Council. As an ex-weaver I cannot let that pass. I should like to stress that there is no more honourable job.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) for his remarks about Mr. Lewis Wright, who is an extremely experienced trade union officer with more than 30 years' experience. He has been my friend and trade union colleague for 35 years, and there is no one in the country more acquainted with the broad range of trade union and labour problems than he. I noticed that, in Committee, it was sug

gested rather facetiously that seamen and other people of this type might be appointed to the Cotton Board. On the Cotton Board I think that we have had a docker, and certainly a miner and certainly at engineer.
This is no new principle, and I am not conscious of any objection being lodged in those cases. I certainly am not averse to docker being additionally appointed to the Ports Council, but I should resent any suggestion that my friend and colleague, Mr. Lewis Wright, who has a great background of experience, is not fitted to cope with the broad issues of labour problems. He would be the first to admit that he does not understand all the intricate details of the dockers' work and of harbours, but I understand that that is not the principle involved. On the Cotton Board we have al ways accepted that independent minds brought to the problem can be extremely helpful in determining broad policy issues.

Mr. Mellish: One of the problems, too, is that this will be a part-time body. Here we have a brilliant trade unionist. There is no question about Mr. Lewis Wright's ability to learn from the ground floor about the dock industry and its difficulties. But we felt that alongside him or a man like him ought to be a trade union representative who has lived and worked in the docks, who knows the answers, and who at the end of the day can go back to the men and explain them. None of us at any time has said anything against Mr. Wright. His ability is beyond question.

Mr. Marples: I am sure that the whole House agrees that Mr. Lewis Wright has had a most distinguished record, and not only in his own trade union. His experience has included membership of the T.U.C. General Council and of the T.U.C. Economic Committee, membership and chairmanship of the British. Productivity Council and membership of the Council of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research. He has been quite outstanding in labour relations as well as in his managerial capacity, and I have the utmost confidence in him. I hope that the hon. Member for Farnworth (Mr. Thornton) does not think that any derogatory remarks have been made about


him, because I do not think that any hon. Member wishes to suggest that.
We are considering two Amendments. The first is permissive. It sets out the qualifications of certain people from among whom the Minister can make appointments to the National Ports Council. The second is mandatory. It says that the Minister must appoint a man from a dockers' trade union to the Council.
May I start with the first, which is permissive? This has been common form in the past, and in the Bill the words which we have chosen are practically the same, and certainly have the same meaning, as those in the Act which was passed by the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) in 1946. The words which he used in Section 2(3) were permissive and not mandatory:
The chairman and other members of the Board shall be appointed by the Minister of Fuel and Power (in this Act referred to as 'the Minister') from amongst persons appearing to him to be qualified as having had experience of, and having shown capacity in, industrial, commercial or financial matters, applied science, administration or the organisation of workers.
In Clause 1(5) of the Bill we have:
The members of the Council shall be appointed from amongst persons appearing to the Minister to have wide experience of, and shown capacity in, the management of harbours, shipping, inland transport, industrial, commercial, financial or economic matters, applied science or the organisation of workers…
Thus we have in the Bill, virtually word for word, what the right hon. Gentleman had in his Measure in 1946; that among those represented will be people who will be suitable to be appointed to the Council. This will ensure that there will be someone who has had experience of the organisation of workers, and we accept that such a person should be on the Council. We are all aware that Ministers come and go. In this case it will be up to the Minister of the day to decide and we believe that this should not be laid down in a mandatory way.
I would like, first, to deal with the Government Amendment, which is permissive, and get that out of the way before dealing with the mandatory Amendment, if I may call it that. I am advised that the words

…persons employed in doing work falling to be done in the course of the management…
make it clear that we are concerned with the people who are employed in the industry as distinct from persons with managerial qualifications. In other words, we are trying to meet the objections which were raised in Committee and to widen further the provisions of the earlier legislation so that it is clear that employees have the right, if they show aptitude, to be selected.
We accept the principle of that and I hope that the wording of the Government Amendment achieves that end. I am advised that it does. It shows that there is nothing to stop anyone, whatever his capacity, from being selected. I will, in due course, have further consultation about this to make absolutely certain that the wording meets this point and carries out the wishes of hon. Members.
The Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) says two things which have never been said before. The first is that it should be mandatory to have somebody whom the Minister must choose—not that it is up to the Minister to choose but that it is mandatory for him to do so—and that he must choose somebody who has had experience of the organisation of workers, and the second is that the person chosen must be of a particular class of worker in that particular industry.
I see the force of the hon. Gentleman's point. I appreciate what he is trying to get at; that there might be a difficult industry with an unfortunate history, in which the men have long memories. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) was right to call attention to the solidarity of people like miners. It has always been our intention that we should have people with experience from various walks of life and that is why, in iron and steel, transport and other legislation it has not been said that one must have a representative of that industry's organised labour. This is particularly so in the transport industry legislation because my intention has been from the beginning that the Council should not in any way represent sectional interests.
Any narrowing of the terms which could introduce the possibility of such a development would be undesirable because if we accepted the Opposition Amendment we would immediately be besieged by a number of other people requiring and demanding sectional representation. We might have port interests—the interests of port authorities, port users, and so on—urging representation, in which case the whole managerial function of this body would be destroyed. If we gave the principle away in one case we would be called upon to give it away in others. To require me to do these things would place me under great pressure.
The same thing would happen with geographical interests. I have already had correspondence with a number of hon. Members and I have been asked, "What about having someone from Wales?" Hon. Members may not be surprised to learn that I have also been asked, "What about having someone from Scotland?" I have deliberately striven lo avoid getting sectional interests on the Council because I do not believe that that would be the right way to proceed. The paramount need is to have men like Mr. Wright, men who are outstanding in their spheres of activity, and not to have a corpus of individuals whose main qualification is their connection in one way or another with a part of the industry.
I may be wrong, but I cannot think of anything on the Statute Book which has the sort of provision that is suggested in the Opposition Amendment. It is certainly not in transport legislation. It is not in legislation covering the iron and steel industry or the nationalised coal industry and I believe that to accept the Amendment would be to introduce an entirely new principle. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Bermondsey to withdraw his Amendment.
6.15 p.m.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Easington was at his most persuasive today and I am always a little apprehensive when kind words from him are directed towards me. Any flattery from him puts me on my guard; but I was grateful. I agree that it is not always easy to conduct a Bill through

its Committee stage. I would, therefore, like to take this opportunity to say "Thank you" for the really remarkable job that was done in Committee by my hon. and gallant Friend the Parliamentary Secretary. I am grateful to him. If a Minister has Parliamentary Secretaries—and I have three of them—he must, as senior hon. Members who have had Ministerial responsibility realise, delegate duties and responsibilities to them. It is ften said that the Minister should delegate as much as he can to them—at least, as much as he can get away with. I am grateful for having such an able Parliamentary Secretary to pilot the Bill through in Committee.
When the hon. Member for Goole (Mr. Jeger) spoke about the number of concessions which were made in Committee I felt rather uneasy, particularly when he referred to the number of occasions on which we lave given way to the Opposition and have accepted so many of their Amendments. Since we have taken that attitude I hope that I may ask them to be charitable on this occasion and not to press their Amendment to a Division. As I have explained, to accept it would be to breach an important principle, a principle which I do not believe has been breached in previous legislation.

Mr. Mellish: If our Amendment is called for a Division we will certainly go into the Lobby, because we cannot accept the right hon. Gentleman's arguments against it. He said that it was the intention of the Government to ensure that no sectional interests were represented on the Council. If he believes that, why does he not consider who will be represented on it? He has no need to worry about the port employers knocking on his door seeking representation. The are already well represented.
If the Council is to be a success it must have on not only Mr. Wright, but someone with real knowledge of dockworkers, their organisation, and so on, who will be able to go back to the workers and explain to them why certain decisions must be made. We believe that the right hon. Gentleman is wrong and, because of that, we intend to press our Amendment to a Division.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed: In page 2, line 30, at end insert:
and shall include at least one person appearing to the Minister to have had experience and shown capacity in an organisation of

workers connected with the dock industry".[Mr. Mellish.]

Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 177, Noes 230.

Division No. 35.]
AYES
[6.19 p.m.


Albu, Austen
Harper, Joseph
Parkin, B. T.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Hayman, F. H.
Pavitt, Laurence


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Healey, Denis
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Awbery, Stan (Bristol, Central)
Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)
Pentland, Norman


Bacon, Miss Alice
Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Popplewell, Ernest


Barnett, Guy
Hilton, A. V.
Prentice, R. E.


Beaney, Alan
Holt, Arthur
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Houghton, Douglas
Probert, Arthur


Benn, Anthony Wedgwood
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Hoy, James H.
Randall, Harry


Benson, Sir George
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Rankin, John


Blackburn F.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Redhead, E. C.


Blyton, William
Hunter, A. E.
Rhodes, H.


Boardman, H.
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H.W. (Leics, S.W.)
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Bowles, Frank
Janner, Sir Barnett
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Panoras, N.)


Boyden, James
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)


Bradley, Tom
Jeger, George
Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Ross, William


Brockway, A. Fenner
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Silkin, John


Callaghan, James
Kelley, Richard
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Carmichael, Neil
Kenyon, Clifford
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Chapman, Donald
King, Dr. Horace
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Cliffe, Michael
Lawson, George
Small, William


Collick, Percy
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Snow, Julian


Cronin, John
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Sorensen, R. W.


Crosland, Anthony
Lipton, Marcus
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Crossman, R. H. S.
Lubbock, Eric
Spriggs, Leslie


Dalyell, Tarn
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Steele, Thomas


Darling, George
McBride, N.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Mackie, John (Enfield, East)
Stonehouse, John


Davies, Harold (Leek)
McLeavy, Frank
Stones, William


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Stross, Sir Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)


Dempsey, James
Manuel, Archie
Swingler, Stephen


Diamond, John
Mapp, Charles
Taverne, D.


Dodds, Norman
Marsh, Richard
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
Mason, Roy 
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W-)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Mellish, R. J.
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Mendelson, J. J
Thornton, Ernest


Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Millan, Bruce
Thorpe, Jeremy


Evans, Albert Fitch, Alan
Milne, Edward
Tomney, Frank Wainwright, Edwin


Fletcher, Eric
Mitchison, G. R-
Warbey, William


Foley, Maurice
Monslow, Walter
Whitlock, William


Forman, J. C.
Moody, A. S.
Wilkins, W. A.


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Morris, Charles (Openshaw)
Willey, Frederick


Galpern, Sir Myer
Moyle, Arthur
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Ginsburg, David
Mulley, Frederick
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Neal, Harold
Winterbottom, R. E.


Gourlay, Harry
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Grey, Charles
O'Malley, B. K.
Woof, Robert


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Owen, Will
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Gunter, Ray
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Zilliacus, K.


Hamilton, William (West File)
Pargiter, G. A.



Hannan, William
Parker, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Dr. Broughton and Mr. McCann.




NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Braine, Bernard


Allason, James
Bidgood, John C.
Brewis, John


Anderson, D. C.
Biffen, John
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter


Arbuthnot, Sir John
Biggs-Davison, John
Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Brown, Alan (Tottenham)


Atkins, Humphrey
Bishop, Sir Patrick
Browne, Percy (Torrington)


Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)
Bossom, Hon. Clive
Bryan, Paul


Barber, Anthony
Bourne-Arton, A.
Bullard, Denys


Barlow, Sir John
Box, Donald
Bullus, Wing Commander Eric


Barter, John
Boyle, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward
Burden, F. A.




Butcher, Sir Herbert
Holland, Philip
Pitman, Sir James


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Hollingworth, John
Pitt, Dame Edith


Carr, Rt. Hon. Robert
Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John
Pounder, Rafton


Cary, Sir Robert
Hopkins, Alan
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch


Channon, H. P. G.
Hornby, R. P.
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Chataway, Christopher
Howard, John (Southampton, Test
Prior, J. M. L.


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Sir Winston
Hughes-Young, Michael
Ramsden, James


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Hulbert, Sir Norman
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Cleaver, Leonard
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Rees, Hugh (Swansea, W.)


Cole, Norman
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Renton, Rt. Hon. David


Cooke, Robert
Jackson, John
Ridsdale, Julian


Cooper, A. E.
James, David
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Russell, Sir Ronald


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

Shaw, M.


Costain, A. P.
Jennings, J. C.
Skeet, T. H. H.


Coulson, Michael
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Critchley, Julian
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Speir, Rupert


Cunningham, Knox
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Stainton, Keith


Curran, Charles
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Stanley, Hon. Richard


Dalkeith, Earl of
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Stevens, Geoffrey


Dance, James
Kershaw, Anthony
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


d'Avigdor- Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Kimball, Marcus
Stodart, J. A.


Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F.
Kirk, Peter
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Kitson, Timothy
Storey, Sir Samuel


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Lambton, Viscount
Studholme, Sir Henry


Duncan, Sir James
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Tapsell, Peter


Duthie, Sir William (Banff)
Lindsay, Sir Martin
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Linstead, Sir Hugh
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)


Elliott, R.W.(Newc'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Litchfield, Capt. John
Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Longden, Gilbert
Taylor, Sir William (Bradford, N.)


Errington, Sir Eric
Loveys, Walter H.
Teeling, Sir William


Farey-Jones, F. W.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn
Temple, John M.


Farr, John
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Finlay, Graeme
MacArthur, Ian
Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
McLaren, Martin
Thompson, Sir Kenneth (Walton)


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute &amp; N. Ayrs)
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Gibson-Watt, David
Maddan, Martin
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, Central)
Maginnis, John E.
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Maitland, Sir John
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon


Glover, Sir Douglas
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Turner, Colin


Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Goodhart, Philip
Marshall, Sir Douglas
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Goodhew, Victor
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Vane, W. M. F.


Grant-Ferns, R.
Mawby, Ray
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Green, Alan
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Vickers, Miss Joan


Gresham Cooke, R.
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Walder, David


Grosvenor, Lord Robert
Mills, Stratton
Walker, Peter


Gurden, Harold
Miscampbell, Norman
Wall, Patrick


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Montgomery, Fergus
Ward, Dame Irene


Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Webster, David


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Morgan, William
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Morrison, John
Whitelaw, William


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Harvie Anderson, Miss
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Hastings, Stephen
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Wise, A. R.


Hay, John
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Woodhouse, C. M.


Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Page, John (Harrow, West)
Woodnutt, Mark


Hendry, Forbes
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Worsley, Marcus


Hiley, Joseph
Partridge, E.
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)



Hirst, Geoffrey
Peel, John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hogg, Rt. Hon. Quintin
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Mr. Batsford and Mr. Pym.

Clause 2.—(PROMOTION BY THE COUNCIL OF RESEARCH, AND TRAINING AND EDUCATION.)

6.30 p.m.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I beg to move, in page 3, line 10, to leave out "Council" to "may" in line 13.
It might be for the convenience of the Committee if, with this Amendment, we were to discuss that in page 3, line

40, as the words we propose to add by that Amendment are in substitution of those we propose to leave out by this one.
The words proposed to be left out were inserted in Committee as a result of an Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Webster). When we accepted that Amendment we made it clear that


in the Government's opinion the words did not go wide enough, and we reserved the right to move on Report the much wider form of words we now ask the House to accept in the other Amendment.
I must say, in passing, that we have never been wholly convinced that it is necessary to write into statutes a provision that responsible bodies like the National Ports Council should be required to consult people whom they obviously would consult. However, there was a consensus of opinion on both sides of the Standing Committee that some wording on the present lines was desirable. That being so, we thought it very important that the words chosen should be wide enough to embrace all the most likely persons and organisations whom we would wish the Council to consult in these matters of research and development on the one hand, or education and training on the other. I hope that the House will agree that the words proposed will achieve that purpose.

Mr. Mellish: The Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Webster) was the only Tory Amendment moved in the Standing Committee, and brought forth the only worth-while Tory speech that was made there. We support the Amendment, because if the National Ports Council is to do its job it should be made clear to harbour authorities, in particular, that there will be consultation all down the line. The Parliamentary Secretary said that he did not think that these words were necessary, but we think they are, and we think the motive for the Amendment is a very good one.

Mr. Webster: I thank my hon. and gallant Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, and I also thank the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) for the exceedingly gracious way in which he has treated me today. I hope that he will do better later. This Amendment is acceptable to me.

Dr. King: The Parliamentary Secretary is a striking illustration of the saying, "The man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still." He does not believe it necessary to write into the Clause what the hon. Member

for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Webster) and we, together, insisted in Committee was necessary. I seem to remember that on that occasion it was a question of the wording, and I went on record as saying that the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare had produced a much more acceptable Amendment than we had.
The Parliamentary Secretary has now done what he set out to do, and very generously. What he now proposes is a great improvement on anything that either side suggested in Committee. He has written consultation firmly into the Bill. He has brought in, as we wanted him to do, the Docks and Harbours Association as a body that is representative of dock and harbour opinion, and has gone even further by ensuring that the National Ports Council will fully consult anybody who can in any way be affected by the great proposals the Council will make. I thank the hon. and gallant Gentleman quite sincerely for the way in which he has done this.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed: In page 3, line 26, after "Minister", insert:
(after consultation with them)".—[Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett.]

Mr. Hoy: Does this Amendment mean exactly what it says? The proposed wording would be:
…It shall be the duty of the Council, if directed in writing by the Minister (after consultation with them) so to do…
Is my reading of the Amendment correct?

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: This Amendment, and that in page 3, line 29, require the Minister to consult the Council before directing it to undertake any schemes of research, training or education. We have put down the Amendment in fulfilment of an assurance I gave to try to find some form of words to safeguard the Council and the industry against the possibility of the Minister directing the Council to undertake some enormously costly scheme and then not making a grant towards the cost. After much thought, we decided that the best plan was to require the Minister to consult the Council before giving them a direction. That, at least,


provides some safeguard against what I hope and believe is a risk more theoretical than real.
I admit that these words come very close to those put down in Committee by the hon. Member for Manchester, Exchange (Mr. W. Griffiths) which we were not able to accept and, looking back, I think that it might be better for me to have said that we accepted his Amendment in principle. However, I think that hon. Members on both sides will admit that this particular danger did not emerge until it was brought out by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine). As soon as he pointed out the risk to which we might expose the industry of footing the bill for a big programme of research, I realised that we must put something into the Bill. What we have now tabled is the best we can do. I recommend it to the House. The Amendment in page 3, line 29 is consequential upon it.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 3, line 29, after "directed", insert:
by him after such consultation so to do".

In line 40, at end insert:
(3) In the exercise of their powers under subsection (1) of this section and in the discharge of a duty imposed on them by virtue of subsection (2) of this section, the Council shall act in consultation with—

(a) such harbour authorities and bodies appearing to the Council to be representative of harbour authorities;
(b) such persons engaged in the carrying of goods or passengers in ships by sea and bodies appearing to the council to be representative of persons so engaged; and
(c) such persons and authorities engaged in education and research;
as the Council think appropriate in the circumstances, and with any other person who appears to them to be concerned.—[Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett.]

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I beg to move, in page 3, line 40, at the end to insert:
(4) Where the Council promote research, or training and education, by others, they may give assistance (including financial assistance) therefor.

Mr. Mellish: On a point of order Mr. Speaker. I understood that this Amendment, which is No. 10 on the Notice Paper, was not discussed with the previous Amendment, but stood on its own.

Mr. Speaker: I have just called the Minister to move the Amendment in page 3, line 40, which is No. 10.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: It so happens that, for some reason, Amendment No. 11 comes before Amendment No. 10 on the Notice Paper. This Amendment goes with that immediately following it in page 3, line 44—No. 12 in the Notice Paper.
The Amendment I have just moved is no more than a drafting one. It separates the provisions relating to charges which the Council may make for research, training and education from the provisions for assistance which the Council may give to persons carrying out research', training and education on the Council's behalf. It does no more than that.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed: In page 3, line 44, leave out from second "of" to end of line 47 and insert:
subsection (2) of this section; but shall not, in exercise of the power conferred by this subsection, exact a charge from a person other than one engaged in the improvement, maintenance or management of a harbour or the carrying out of harbour operations."—[Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett.]

Mr. Mellish: If the Parliamentary Secretary refers to the Amendment we passed in page 2, line 26, and then refers to this one, he will see that the same form of words is used in the two cases to exclude and to include the dock workers. When we were discussing the former Amendment, the hon. and gallant Gentleman told us that he had been legally advised that that was the correct form of words to use. Can he tell us what legal experts have advised in this case, because, at the moment, we are confused?

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I think that I went a little too fast. I should have said that the Amendment in page 3, line 40, which the House has just agreed, is really a paving Amendment to the Amendment in page 3, line 44, which is now before us.
This Amendment fulfils the undertaking which we gave that the Council should be precluded from making charges to the workers in the industry and should charge only the people carrying out the management functions.


With respect to the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish), I do not think that there is any confusion. I think that we have it right.

Mr. A. J. Irvine: With respect, I think that the Parliamentary Secretary has not quite met the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish). It is provided in the Amendment that the Council shall not exact a charge
from a person other than one engaged in the improvement, maintenance or management of a harbour or the carrying out of harbour operations".
We understand that the purpose there—the hon. and gallant Gentleman has made clear that this is the purpose—is to ensure that a docker, for example, will not have to carry the burden of paying for his training and will not be subject to a charge.
However, there is still a difficulty and, perhaps, even at this late stage, the question could be further considered. It is a drafting point. If the Parliamentary Secretary looks at his earlier Amendment in Clause 1, page 2, line 26, he will find that almost precisely the same form of words is resorted to in order to ensure that a dock worker can be eligible for appointment to the Council. It is a narrow drafting point, but it clearly calls for further consideration.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: May I say, with the leave of the House, that we certainly undertake that the question will be examined before the Bill is considered in another place. However, we are advised that this wording meets what we intend it to meet.

Dr. King: I wish, first, to comment on the point made by the Parliamentary Secretary just now about possible confusion caused by the numbering of Amendments. I am sure that every hon. and right hon. Member appreciates that the numbering of Amendments is such an enormous advantage that one would not wish to seem to criticise it. The simple fact is that Amendments appear on the Notice Paper at the points where they make the Amendments in the Bill, but their numbering has to do with the time at which they come in. Obviously, it will happen often that the numbering will not be consecutive on the Notice

Paper. It is only fair to say this to those who have to do the numbering of Amendments. We find the numbering procedure a tremendous convenience.
On the issue itself, the Parliamentary Secretary is quite right. We were worried in Committee about Clause 2(3), the first few words which provide that
The Council may make charges in respect of training and education of persons undertaken by them…
We wish to promote research. We wish to promote the training of brilliant or able young people in the industry. We are anxious that they should not themselves pay. We have it in mind that the docks association, the harbour industry itself or the dock authorities should meet the cost of such training, or, if necessary—and this is what the Minister's paving Amendment does—the Council itself might provide financial assistance so that no person who goes on a training course will have to pay the bill himself.
What my hon. Friends are worried about is whether the wording of the Amendment actually does this. It provides that no person shall be charged
other than one engaged in the improvement, maintenance or management of a harbour or the carrying out of harbour operations".
Almost anyone in the industry is covered by those words, so it seems to us. I want the Parliamentary Secretary to make sure that the wording of his Amendment does what he wants and what we ask him to do.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I can give that undertaking, though I assure hon. Members that the words have been used consistently throughout the Bill to describe the management authorities. It will be noted that the words here are not quite the same as in the Amendment to Clause 1, page 2, line 26, which speaks of persons having "wide experience as persons employed", and so on.

Mr. Mellish: In view of the assurance which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has given, that he will look at the wording, I think that we can accept the Amendment. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) was most unhappy about this, and, if I may say so, his legal judgment on these matters proved very valuable in Committee. Indeed, there have been occasions when Parliamentary


counsel have had to admit that he was right and they were wrong.
We want this to be cleared up before the final stages of the Bill. It must be remembered that the whole idea has been to ensure the promotion of research and education and that dock workers would be eligible. We envisage that, at the end of the day, a dock worker could, perhaps, be trained for the highest executive jobs. If that is the intention and spirit of the Government's approach, we are happy to accept the Amendment, but perhaps the other place could be asked to look at the wording in case, once again, my hon. and learned Friend proves to be right.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 3.—(PROVISION OF FUNDS FOR THE COUNCIL.)

Amendment made: In page 4, line 6, leave out "them" and insert "the council".—[Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett.]

6.45 p.m.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I beg to move, in page 5, line 6, at the end to insert:
and shall send a copy of the scheme to each harbour authority known to them whom they believe to be affected by the scheme ".
The purpose of the Amendment is to require the Council to send a copy of any levy scheme to each harbour authority they consider to be effected by the scheme immediately after they submit it to the Minister. The Amendment fulfils the undertaking I gave to introduce an Amendment which would give effect to a proposal by, as I remember, the hon. Member for Goole (Mr. Jeger). The words the hon. Gentleman proposed were not acceptable for various reasons which I need not now recapitulate. I hope that both he and the House will now agree that the words we have selected will do.

Mr. Jeger: These words do cover the intention behind the Amendment I moved in Committee, and I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for giving effect to the promise which he made. It is vital to the goodwill which we want to exist between the Council and the various dock authorities that there should be the utmost consultation between them. This elementary act of

courtesy will go some way towards creating that good will.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 8.—(CONTROL OF HARBOUR DEVELOPMENT.)

Amendments made: In page 8, line 13, leave out "such" and insert "proposed".

In page 8, line 15, after "the", insert "proposed''.—[Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett.]

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I beg to move, in page 8, to leave out lines 22 and 23 and to insert:
(6) An order under subsection (1) above shall not so define a case by reference to cost as to prohibit a person from undertaking, or securing the undertaking of, a project without the authorisation of the Minister in a case where the project complies with the following conditions, that is to say, its cost does not exceed the sum of £500,000 and it does not form part of a larger project the cost of which exceeds the sum, or of a series of projects the cost of which, in the aggregate exceeds that sum; and a person shall not, in a case other than one defiled in an order made under subsection (1) above by reference to cost, be prohibited, by virtue of the order, from undertaking, or securing the undertaking of, a project with out the authorisation of the Minister in a case where the project complies with the condition: aforesaid.
(7) An order under subsection (1) above shall be so framed as, in the opinion of the Minister, to secure that there is exempted from any prohibition thereby imposed the undertaking, and the securing of the undertaking, of works of the nature of routine maintenance and works of the nature of routine repair.
(8) An order under subsection (1) above may, for the purpose of subsection (6) above or any pro on contained in the order defining a case by reference to the cost of a project".
I think that it would be for the convenience of the House to discuss, at the same time, the second Amendment in page 8, line 41, at the end to insert a new subsection (8).

Mr. Speaker: Yes, if the House pleases.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: The purpose of the Amendment I have moved is twofold. First, it specifies a minimum figure below which the control of capital development provided for by the Clause may not operate. Secondly, excludes routine maintenance and repair from the control. This, again, is in fulfilment of undertakings given in Committee.
These Amendments together make one of the key Amendments which we undertook in Committee to introduce on Report. I repeat for the record what I said in Committee, that the Government realised that this Clause would need a major Amendment before the Bill went on the Statute Book. We had a number of suggestions from conflicting interests as to how it might be amended, and we came to the conclusion that the best plan was to put nothing down until we had heard the matter fully debated. We felt sure that there would be an hon. Member briefed to speak on behalf of almost every interest involved in this Measure. I think that this proved to be true. Hon. Members will recall that we had a very long debate about it. The minimum figure below which the control will not operate has been set at £500,000, so that it will enable the great bulk of the medium and minor capital projects to escape control. But provision is made in the second Amendment for the Minister to vary this figure by order subject to affirmative Resolution in both Houses.
The reference in the Amendment to a project which forms part of a larger project or is one of a series of projects is designed to ensure that the control cannot be circumvented by the splitting up of the major scheme into component parts each of which may cost a little less than £500,000. This is a problem familiar to the Treasury, which endeavours to exercise financial control by means of project control, and anybody who has been connected with the expenditure of public money will know how easy it is to evade. But there is this safeguard of public money, namely, that the Treasury can step in at any time. Here, we must try to write in to the statute a safeguard that will be lasting.
That is the object of the form of words which has been chosen. A series of projects could, for example, include the construction of a new dock, the provision of berths, the acquisition of cranes, the provision of new railway lines and rolling stock, and so on. It would be possible, although admittedly very unlikely, that an authority might try to circumvent the control by going forward with one project at a time notwithstanding the fact that any given project would

be useless unless something costing much the same was done immediately afterwards. As I say, it is extremely unlikely that any responsible port authority would wish to evade control in this way. Nevertheless, the Amendment will ensure that the necessary control can be maintained.
The essential purpose of the Amendment is to relieve the apprehensions of the medium and small ports about their ability to carry on with harbour development projects without having to refer to my right hon. Friend in each case for his approval. A very real fear was expressed which we felt had substance. In marginal cases, if a harbour authority is in any doubt about what constitutes a large project or series of projects, it can always seek advice from the Ministry. There would be no excuse for a harbour authority to embark on a project and then afterwards pretend that it did not know that the project was subject to control.
The proposed subsection (7) in the first Amendment fulfils the Government's undertaking to remove from control maintenance or repair works of a purely routine nature. Its object is to meet the apprehensions of the larger ports that they would be hamstrung in their normal work and would have to seek authorisation and approval for purely maintenance work in each case.
The second Amendment enables the Minister to vary the figure of £500,000 by order. Its primary purpose is to give the Minister a reasonable degree of flexibility in varying the figure below which the control of capital development will not operate. That is obvious. I frankly admit that the figure of £500,000 is, to some extent, a guess. It may be that when the scheme is in full operation we shall find that it is not necessary to exercise control over schemes costing perhaps £700,000 or even £1 million; it remains to be seen. The figure of £500,000 is the best guess that we have been able to make in consultation with the National Ports Council.
On the other hand—and I want to make this clear—in case somebody asks me for an undertaking that we shall lower the figure, I must say that I am not prepared to give it. If we find harbour authorities are trying to evade the control by splitting up their projects,


in an ingenious way which escapes detection until it is too late, into parts each of which might cost less than £500,000, the Minister, at some future date, might find himself forced to come to Parliament with a Resolution to reduce the figure of £500.000.
I think that the specific authority of Parliament by way of affirmative Resolution in both Houses would ensure that any action taken by a Minister to vary the figure up or down would be subject to the fullest scrutiny.

Mr. Hoy: We are grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for explaining the Amendment. It is true that part of it assures us that the routine work and ordinary routine repairs in the docks will be excluded. We are grateful for that, because trouble could have been caused to any harbour authority if in wishing to undertake ordinary routine work it was compelled to apply to the National Ports Council for the necessary authority.
It was suggested on Second Reading and in Committee that we might be able to write a sum into the Bill. It was difficult—and every hon. Member in Committee admitted it—to find a sum which would be just in its application to every port in the country. What might be quite reasonable to the Port of London Authority might appear to be ridiculous to a smaller authority. On the other hand, a sum which might be generous for a small authority might be ridiculous for the Port of London Authority. We therefore understood the Minister's difficulty. It was suggested earlier that the sum of £500,000 might be written into the Bill. It is true that we on this side thought that that was reasonable. It is also true that, having given the matter consideration, we wonder whether this is the right figure. Obviously, £500,000 might suit the Port of London very well. But one can think of harbours which one can buy for £500,000. Therefore, £500,000 for repairs would be preposterous.
It all depends on what words mean. I had a little altercation with the Minister of Transport this afternoon about the buying back of his business. He protested most vehemently about my interpretation of what he said. I said that he had arranged to buy his

business back. He said that he had done nothing of the sort. I now find that the right hon. Gentleman said:
…I think that I should tell the House that the prospective purchasers have required me to undertake to buy the shares back from them at the price they are to pay if they ask me to do so after I have ceased to hold office."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th January, 1960; Vol. 616, c. 381.]
That is whet I thought I said. I think that it will be proved that I did not do the right ho n. Gentleman any justice.
The Parliamentary Secretary, having put in £500,000, then takes power to vary it up or down. We are, therefore, back to where we were. The hon. and gallant Gentleman said that eventually he may want to raise the £500,000 to £700,000, or £1 million. He was in his most adamant mood when he said, "Anyone who asks me to reduce this sum will get a refusal". Although we have written £500,000 into the Bill, the Minister still takes power, by affirmative Resolution, I admit, even to vary the £500,000. Therefore, having thought of all the difficulties involved, and having put in the sum of £500,000, which can be varied by order, he has just about reached the right decision.

7.0 p.m.

Dr. King: Probably one of the most important things that we have done in Committee is to destroy a lot of the suspicions when the Bill began its progress through the Committee. I sincerely congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary on grasping this nettle. The suspicion that the harbour authorities had over and over again expressed to us was that there would be interference by the Ports Council, or the Minister in day-to-day work, in ordinary forward planning, in the detailed work of the port, in maintenance and in repairs.
The Minister said right at the beginning, 12 months ago, that if we could devise a formula which would ensure that the control would be major control without the niggling detailed control that the docks and harbour authorities feared, he would be happy to accept it. Let us confess frankly that every formula that we devised in Committee had its difficulties. What we now have before us the very best attempt we have had so far. I congratulate the Minister and his advisers upon it.
First, this formula names a sum. Even that sum, however, presents a problem. The £½ million may not be sufficient to prevent the Port of London from a certain amount of interference by the Minister in what it regards almost as the normal working of the ports. But £ ½million will lift out all the little ports—indeed, practically every port except a few major ones—from any financial control by the Bill. That is why I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy). I think that the Minister must have this reserve power. He may find that the£ ½ million is an entirely wrong figure. He may find that he should have two figures in mind, one for the big ports and one for the smaller ones. On the other hand, there was weight in the view of the Dock and Harbour Authorities' Association that £ ½ million gave an operation of some conceivable magnitude with bills in which they certainly did not want national interference.
The Parliamentary Secretary is quite right to insert a proviso. Without it, it would be possible that the £ ½ million must be the whole scheme and not a section of it. It would be possible for an unscrupulous authority—there may or may not be unscrupulous authorities—to put in an application for a scheme costing £499,999 19s. 11d. and regard that as not requiring any authority and a second, third and fourth schemes and, in the end, get £2 million worth of work done without the authority of the Minister or the Ports Council.
It was, I think, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) who made the practical suggestion in Committee that, if we excluded routine repairs and maintenance, that would cover a lot. The Minister has taken that suggestion from the Committee and is incorporating it in the Clause. He has done all that any human being can do at this stage in the early days of this great venture to secure what must, I am certain, satisfy all the ports and harbours: first, that the little ports will be out of it altogether; and, secondly, that the Government will not interfere except on really major matters. In those major matters, we all believe that the Government should interfere, otherwise we would not have had the Bill.
Having said that, the Minister must reserve to himself the right to come back to the House with an order and say, "I think that £500,000 was too high a figure. It should be less." What is much more likely is that in the case of some of the larger ports, he would come to the House and say that £½ million was too small a figure. He has gone on that as far as he can by saying that the order shall be an affirmative order. He has done all that the Committee asked him to do and I wholeheartedly congratulate him on this achievement.

Mr. Webster: I add my thanks to my hon. and gallant Friend the Parliamentary Secretary. This is practically the nub of the Bill. It is difficult to get a balance between undue interference in day-to-day work and, at the same time, to keep the express intention of the Rochdale Committee with an overall look. My hon. and gallant Friend has rightly decided to keep something up his sleeve. The exact figure is a difficult matter, as we all found in Committee. My hon. and gallant Friend has done this with considerable good judgment and I congratulate and thank him.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I thank the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King) and my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Webster) for their support. Also, I think, I have the support of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy). The hon. Member raised, however, a question of importance. He asked whether £500,000 was not too much for the small ports. In the sense that for practical purposes it frees many small ports from control, the answer would be "Yes", but we must not forget the object of this control. It is simply to ensure that port development throughout the country as a whole takes place within the framework of a national plan.
The national plan is not affected appreciably by the development of the very small ports—not until they grow and become medium ports. By the time they have grown and become medium ports, the £500,000 will have become chickenfeed. It is, therefore, probably about the right figure.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 8, line 24, leave out "that cost" and insert "the cost of a project".

In line 25, leave out "thereon" and insert "on the project".—[Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett.]

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I beg to move, in page 8, line 41, at the end, to insert:
(8) Nothing in an order under this section shall be taken to prohibit an internal drainage board (within the meaning of the Land Drainage Act 1930) a river board, a river authority, a river purification authority, a district board, an improvement committee, the Conservators of the River Thames or the Lee Conservancy Catchment Board from undertaking any project in the exercise of river works powers or the performance of river works duties.
This is not a drafting Amendment. It is one of the oversights and matters which come to light as the Bill is studied. The Amendment is designed to exclude certain projects, about which the Committee heard on numerous occasions in later stages of the Bill which are undertaken by certain drainage and river authorities from the scope of the Minister's control. These authorities have, under statutory provisions, drainage or conservancy functions in relation to waterways navigated by seagoing ships. These functions are conferred in terms which might cause the authorities to be regarded as falling within the description contained in subsection (2) of persons to whom the Clause applies.
This is because in the statutory provisions referred to in the definition in Clause 53, the expression "river works powers" vested functions in them which could be regarded as involving the improving or maintaining of the waterways in question.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: in page 8, line 41, at end insert:
(8) The Minister may by order made under this subsection substitute for the sum of £500,000 mentioned in subsection (6) above such other sum as is specified in the order, but no order shall be made under this subsection unless a draft of the order has been laid before Parliament and approved by a Resolution of each House of Parliament.—[Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett.]

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I beg to move, in page 8, line 46, to leave out "The" and to insert "Any".
This is a drafting Amendment, the reason for which may not be immediately apparent. It is simply because the Amendments that the House has just a accepted mean that there is an additional power which the Minister now has under the Clause instead of a single one, the additional power being the power to vary the figure of £500,000.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 9.—(ENFORCEMENT OF CONTROL OF HARBOUR DEVELOPMENT.)

Amendment made: In page 9, line 3, after "contravention", insert "of".—[Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett.]

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I beg to move, in page 9, line 5, to leave out from "but" to the end of line 19 and to insert:
without prejudice to the bringing of civil proceedings by the Attorney-General in respect of any such contravention or failure to comply or of any apprehended contravention of such a prohibition or condition, any such prohibition or condition shall be enforcable by civil proceedings by the Minister for an injunction or for any other appropriate relief.
This Amendment was tabled in consequence of doubt expressed in Committee, particularly by the hon. and learned Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvin) about the words
…in like manner as if the said prohibition or condition were a contractual obligation of that person to the Minister.
The changes effected by this Amendment are as follows: first, it is made clear that the right of the Minister to bring civil proceedings is without prejudice to the general right of the Crown acting through the Attorney-General to bring civil proceedings to enforce obligations imposed by a Statute; and, secondly, that the remedies which can be sought by the Minister are expressed in a shorter and more comprehensive fashion in the new wording by the words
proceedings…for an injunction or for any other appropriate relief.
This allows the Minister to apply for any relief which is appropriate after a person has tried to undertake, or has succeeded in undertaking, a project in defiance of Clause 8.
I hope that the new form of words will meet the point made in Committee.

Mr. A. J. Irvine: We on this side are most grateful for the way in which this


point has been dealt with. We regard the proposed wording as meeting the difficulty. As the hon. and gallant Gentleman said, the point that occurred to some of us was that the provision that "proceedings shall be in like manner", as if the prohibition were a contractual obligation, might tend to stultify or limit the attempts to get an injunction, because it was a form of words that seemed to us almost, as it were, designed to invite attention to the question of whether damages would not be a proper and adequate alternative remedy. We think that the point is well met by the proposed wording and we are greatly obliged.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In line 35, leave out "on" and insert "out".—[Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett.]

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I beg to move, in page 9, line 46, to leave out from "Scotland" to the end of line 48 and to insert:
subsection (1) of this section shall have effect with the substitution for the words after 'subject, but' of the words 'without prejudice to the bringing of any proceedings under section 91 of the Court of Session Act 1868 in respect of any such contravention or failure to comply or of any apprehended contravention of such a prohibition or condition, any such prohibition or condition shall be enforceable by civil proceedings by the Minister for an interdict or for any other appropriate remedy '.
This is an Amendment to Clause 9(4), which contains the provisions applying the Clause to Scotland. The Amendment is required as a consequence of the alteration in the wording of subsection (1) of the Clause made by Amendment 25 which refers to the taking of civil proceedings for certain purposes by the Attorney General and enables the Minister to take similar proceedings for an injunction.
Proceedings in Scotland corresponding to those taken by the Lord Advocate and those taken by the Minister will be for interdict and not for injunction. This Amendment makes the necessary adaptations.

Mr. Hoy: We understand that the Amendment will bring the law in Scotland into line with the Amendment in page 9, line 5, but we find it a little surprising that it should be the hon. and

gallant Gentleman who moved it. A few weeks ago we would have been demanding a law officer, but now that we have one and he cannot be present, we accept the hon. and gallant Gentleman's word that this Amendment does no more than he claims, and we raise no objection, to it.

7.15 p.m.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I, too, thought it was rather surprising, because it seemed to me that this was essentially a Scottish Amendment. I was told that in point of fact it was not, and when I looked at the explanation given to me, I found that it was a great deal less trouble to learn what the Amendment did than to read the explanation.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 10.—(LOANS FOR EXECUTION OF HARBOUR WORKS, &C.)

Mr. A. J. Irvine: I beg to move, in page 10, line 7, at the end to insert:
and (notwithstanding any enactment to the contrary limiting the manner in which money may be borrowed) a harbour authority may borrow moneys by way of loan under this section".

Mr. Speaker: I think that this Amendment might be discussed with that in page 11, line 4 at the end to insert:
and (notwithstanding any enactment to the contrary) a harbour authority may receive assistance by way of grant under this section".

Mr. Irvine: These two matters fall for discussion together. The point that we raise here I can deal with quite shortly, but I think it was a matter of some importance.
Clause 10 authorises Exchequer assistance by way of loan. I am speaking now to the first Amendment, but the point of principle applies to both. We raised in Committee the point that there might be provision in a large number of instances in local and private Acts controlling perhaps the power to borrow or making provision as to how money should be borrowed and how borrowed money should be dealt with. These local and private acts might on inquiry be found to stand in the way of the harbour authority borrowing under the powers conferred upon it by Clause 10.
I ventured in Committee to draw attention, as an illustration of this, to


several enactments which arose in connection with the administration of activities of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board. In the course of our deliberations the Parliamentary Secretary said that he had little doubt that the harbour authorities would follow the points that we were discussing, and if any of them felt that any difficulty arose under the head which I suggested might be a source of difficulty, he expected that they would communicate with him.
I understand, because I have had the courtesy of a communication from the hon. and gallant Gentleman about this, that only one authority has written in on the point. But it is the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board. This has the consequence, which I hope the House will permit me to mention, that it introduces for me, in addition to wider factors, an element of significant constituency interest. The Mersey Docks and Harbour Board, operating in the Port of Liverpool, is one of the very foremost authorities in the country.
I invite the House to take the view that it was significant that the Board should have responded in this fashion to the invitation of the hon. and gallant Gentleman and written in to indicate that it thought that its local and private Acts might be placing some difficulty in the way of its exercising borrowing powers conferred by the Clause. It may be significant because, as I understand it, authorities and boards received no communication from the Department. It was simply left to those who happened to pick up the point from the report of our proceedings in Standing Committee to take the opportunity of making representations.
I understand that the reply which the Board received to its communication told it that it was the only authority which had raised the point, and indicated the Government's intention not to propose any amendment to the Bill but, instead, to invite the authority to set in motion the complicated procedures of amending its Local and Private Acts or to apply for a harbour revision order under one of the Clauses.
I cannot but think that was a somewhat unfortunate attitude to take. It is a rather laborious course of conduct

to invite a board to adopt—to start amending its Local and Private Acts or to apply for a harbour revision order when its natural and not unimportant requirements could be satisfied without harm to anybody by a provision in the Bill that the borrowing powers conferred by Clause 10 should not be regarded as in any way inhibited or affected by provisions in existing private or local Acts.
I cannot see what would be lost it the form of words that we seek to put into the Bill were accepted. I suppose that at the very worst they could be argued to be merely superfluous. But putting them in would have no effect on the authorities whose Private Acts put no difficulty in the way of their new borrowing powers. If these words go in, they have the advantage, on the information hat we have, of being regarded as a convenience by the docks and harbour authority in the second greatest port of the country. Surely that is a matter that deserves careful consideration.
It seems to me that if the Government accepted the Amendment a considerable service would be done to one of our great harbour authorities. It is possible that by the same token a service would be done to some other authorities which have not yet wakened up to the difficulties that may lie latent in their private legislation with regard to their borrowings. It seems to us that from every point of view it would be an advantage if the Amendment were accepted.

Mr. David James (Brighton, Kemp-town): While I have no constituency interest in the matter, I ask my hon. and gallant Friend to look sympathetically at the Amendment. It strikes me that the object of this type of legislation—it is almost a consolidation Measure—is to override the piecemeal legislation which has gone on in harbour administration over the last century. As the hon. and learned Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) pointed out, to bring in special amending legislation, which is an expensive and tedious business, or to apply for a harbour revision order seems to be using a sledge hammer to crack a nut. I should have thought that the wider objects of the Bill would


have been served by the Amendment receiving favourable consideration.

Dr. King: I agree with every word said by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) except his description of the port with which he is concerned as the second greatest port in the country.
I cannot see that the Minister can resist the Amendment. He wants the Mersey in the great scheme. He wants the Mersey to share in the benefits of the planned expansion of the ports. If there are all kinds of legalistic restrictions which would debar him, why does he not accept the simple solution proposed by my hon. and learned Friend and write this into the Bill? It may be, as my hon. and learned Friend pointed out, that there are other ports which have not yet wakened to the fact that they will be outwith some of the benefits of the Bill unless some provision like this is made.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: The hon. and learned Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) is so persuasive that I feel reluctant to resist the Amendment, but I am afraid that I must do so. My hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. David James) put his finger on the reason why the Amendment is resisted by his rather telescopic description of the purpose of the Bill. He said it was intended to override other legislation. That is not quite correct. The object is to provide a simplified machinery whereby the earlier legislation can be overridden, which is a very different thing.
The hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King) also reinforced me in my doubts about the Amendment when he said, quite fairly—we are very conscious of this—that there may well be other ports with legislation that affects their powers. We think it would be rather dangerous to sweep aside all this legislation without knowing what it is.
The hon. and learned Member was very fair. He pointed out that the Amendment has exactly the same effect as the one he moved in Committee and later withdrew when I gave an undertaking that we would look into the

matter and find out what the port authorities had to say about it and whether there was a case for doing this. We have, as he said, received only one approach, from the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board. I think it probable that the Dock and Harbour Association would have drawn the attention of its member-ports to our proceedings in Committee. So I think it fair to say that the bigger and more highly staffed ports probably had a good look at their legislation, and it is probably fair to say that of the big ports the Mersey is the only one affected. In passing, I am glad to say that I am informed that the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board now understands why we are reluctant to meet this special point by amending the Bill.
This is why. If a harbour authority is precluded by its local Act or some other enactment from borrowing money from the Minister or if by some other means a statutory restriction is placed on its borrowing, we cannot think it would be right to override 'he provision in question by a blanket Amendment to Clause 10 as is proposed.
One reason, which the hon. and learned Member for Edge Hill may think rather pedantic, is that strictly speaking the Clause is concerned not with the power of harbour authorities to borrow but with the Minister's power to lend the money. If we accepted the Amendment it would be necessary to have another Clause in the Bill. But the real objection to removing the restrictions in this way is that it is surely better that an authority which wants them removed should do so, as we suggest, by means of a harbour revision order, which is not all that complicated for a big authority and should not involve much extra work or expense.
7.30 p.m.
The procedure we suggest would also give an opportunity for opponents of a scheme prepared by an authority to state their case. They would not have such an opportunity if the Amendment were accepted. The same argument applies to the restrictions in the case of authorities empowered to receive grants. It seems hardly conceivable that there can be any authority restricted in its ability to accept a grant.

Mr. A. J. Irvine: We feel that on this occasion the Parliamentary Secretary has rather uncharacteristically failed to detect what we think are the obvious advantages of our Amendment. This is a sufficiently important matter to justify

inviting my right hon. and hon. Friends to divide the House.

Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 155, Noes 208.

Division No. 36.]
AYES
[7.33 p.m.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Hayman, F. H.
Parkin, B. T.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Awbery, Stan (Bristol, Central)
Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Pentland, Norman


Bacon, Miss Alice
Hilton, A. V.
Popplewell, Ernest


Barnett, Guy
Houghton, Douglas
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Beaney, Alan
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Prbert, Arthur


Benn, Anthony Wedgwood
Hoy, James H.
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Randall, Harry


Benson, Sir George
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Redhead, E. C.


Blackburn, F.
Hunter, A. E.
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Blyton, William
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Boardman, H.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Janner, Sir Barnett
Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)


Bowden, Bt. Hn. H. w. (Leics, S.W.)
Jeger, George
Ross, William


Bowles, Frank
Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield)
Silkin, John


Boyden, James
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Bradley, Tom
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Kelley, Richard
Skeffington, Arthur


Brockway, A. Fenner
Kenyon, Clifford
Slater, Mrs, Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
King, Dr. Horace
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Lawson, George
Snail, William


Callaghan, James
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Snow, Julian


Chapman, Donald
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Sorensen, R. W.


Cliffe, Michael
Lipton, Marcus
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Collick, Percy
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Spriggs, Leslie


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
McCann, John
Steele, Thomas


Cronin, John
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Dalyell, Tarn
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Stonehouse, John


Darling, George
Manuel, Archie
Stones, William


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Mapp, Charles
Stross, Sir Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Marsh, Richard
Swingler, Stephen


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Mason, Roy
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Dempsey, James
Mellish, R, J.
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Diamond, John
Mendelson, J. J.
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)


Dodds, Norman
Millan, Bruce
Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)


Duffy, A. E. P. (Colne Valley)
Milne, Edward
Thornton, Ernest


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Mitchison, G. R.
Tomney, Frank


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Monslow, Walter
Wainwright, Edwin


Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Moody, A. S.
Warbey, William


Evans, Albert
Morris, Charles (Openshaw)
Weitzman, David


Fitch, Alan
Movie, Arthur
White, Mrs. Eirene


Fletcher, Erie
Mulley, Frederick
Whitlock, William


Forman, J. C.
Neat, Harold
Wilkins, W. A.


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Galpern, Sir Myer
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Phillip (Derby, S.)
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Cordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
O'Malley, B. K.
Winterbottom, R. E.


Gourlay, Harry
Oswald, Thomas
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Owen, Will
Woof, Robert


Gunter, Ray
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Pargiter, G. A.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hannan, William
Parker, John
Mr. Grey and Mr. Ifor Davies.


Harper, Joseph






NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Bishop, Sir Patrick
Cote Norman


Allason, James
Bourne-Arton, A.
Cooke, Robert


Anderson, D. C.
Box, Donald
Cooper, A. E.


Arbuthnot, Sir John
Braine, Bernard
Cooper-Key, Sir Neill


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Brewis, John
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.


Atkins, Humphrey
Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Costain, A. P.


Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)
Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Coulson, Michael


Barber, Anthony
Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Critchley, Julian


Barlow, Sir John
Butcher, Sir Herbert
Cunningham, Knox


Barter, John
Carr, Rt. Hon. Robert
Curran, Charles


Batsford, Brian
Cary, Sir Robert
Dalkeith, Earl of


Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Chataway, Christopher
Dance, James


Bidgood, John C.
Chichester-Clark, R.
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry


Biffen, John
Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F.


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Cleaver, Leonard
Digby, Simon Wingfield




Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M
Kirk, Peter
Ridsdale, Julian


Doughty, Charles
Kitson, Timothy
Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)


Duncan, Sir James
Lambton, Viscount
Russell, Sir Ronald


Duthie, Sir William (Banff)
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Shaw, M.


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Shepherd, William


Elliott, R.W.(Newc'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Lindsay, Sir Martin
Skeet, T. H. H.


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Linstead, Sir Hugh
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)


Errington, Sir Eric
Litchfield, Capt. John
Speir, Rupert


Farey-Jones, F. W.
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Stainton, Keith


Farr, John
Longden, Gilbert
Stevens, Geoffrey


Finlay, Graeme
Loveys, Walter H.
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Lubbock, Eric
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn
Storey, Sir Samuel


Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Studholme, Sir Henry


Gibson-Watt, David
McLaren, Martin
Tapsell, Peter


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, Central)
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute &amp; N. Ayrs)
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)


Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
McMaster, Stanley R.
Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)


Goodhart, Phillip
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Taylor, Sir William (Bradford, N.)


Grant-Ferris, B.
Maddan, Martin
Teeling, Sir William


Green, Alan
Maitland, Sir John
Temple, John M.


Grosvenor, Lord Robert
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Gurden, Harold
Marshall, Sir Douglas
Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)


Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Thompson, Sir Kenneth (Walton)


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Mawby, Ray
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Thorpe, Jeremy


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Miscampbell, Norman
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Montgomery, Fergus
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Harvie Anderson, Miss
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon


Hay, John
Morgan, William
Turner, Colin


Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Hendry, Forbes
Neave, Airey
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Hiley, Joseph
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Vane, W. M. F.


Hirst, Geoffrey
Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard
Vickers, Miss Joan


Hogg, Rt. Hon. Quintin
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie
Wade, Donald


Holland, Philip
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Walder, David


Hollingworth, John
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Walker, Peter


Holt, Arthur
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Wall, Patrick


Hooson, H. E.
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Ward, Dame Irene


Hornby, R. P.
Page, John (Harrow, West)
Webster, David


Howard, John (Southampton, Test)
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Partridge, E.
Whitelaw, William


Hughes-Young, Michael
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Peel, John
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Iremonger, T. L.
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Pitman, Sir James
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Jackson, John
Pitt, Dame Edith
Wise, A. R.


James, David
Pounder, Rafton
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch
Woodhouse, C. M.


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Prior, J. M. L.
Worsley, Marcus


Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Pym, Francis



Kaberry, Sir Donald
Quennell, Miss J. M.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Ramsden, James
Mr. J. E. B. Hill and


Kerby, Capt. Henry
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
Mr. MacArthur.


Kimball, Marcus
Rees, Hugh (Swansea, W.)

Amendment made: In page 10, line 45, leave out from "is" to "marine" in line 46 and insert:
neither a fishery harbour nor a".—[Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett.]

Cause 11.—(GRANTS FOR EXECUTION OF HARBOUR WORKS, &C.)

Amendment made: In page 11, line 22, leave out from "is" to "marine" and insert:
neither a fishery harbour nor a".—[Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett.]

Clause 13.—(MINISTER'S POWER, ON APPLICATION OF HARBOUR AUTHORI TIES OR OTHERS, TO MAKE ORDERS FOR SECURING HARBOUR EFFICIENCY.)

Amendments made: In page 13, line 8, after "section", insert:
and in Schedule 2 to this Act".

In line 9, leave out "other than" and insert "not being".

In line 10, after "or", insert "a".

In line 13, leave out "relating" and insert:
to be made in relation ".—[Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett.]

Clause 14.—(MINISTER'S POWER TO MAKE, OF HIS OWN MOTION, ORDERS FOR LIMITED PURPOSES FOR SECURING HARBOUR EFFICIENCY.)

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I beg to move, in page 13, to leave out lines 27 and 28 and to insert:
he may, if he is satisfied as mentioned in subsection (2)(b) of the last foregoing section, make the order despite the fact that no application to him for the making of it is forthcoming


from the authority engaged in improving, maintaining or managing the harbour or from any such person or representative body as is mentioned in subsection (2)(a) of that section".
7.45 p.m.
The purpose of this Amendment is to allow the Minister to make a harbour revision order under Clause 14 notwithstanding the fact that no application is forthcoming from the harbour authority or from any other person. The Clause as it originally stood allowed the making of orders under the Clause only in the case where the Minister was satisfied that no application for the order was likely to be forthcoming. This limitation was deleted in Committee on the grounds that it placed upon my right hon. Friend unnecessarily a requirement to assess and to come to a conclusion on what might be held to be a matter of opinion, indeed, a hypothetical matter. It is desirable, however, to indicate quite specifically that the Minister may make the order of his own motion only in the absence of an application.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 13, line 34, leave out "other than" and insert "not being".

In line 34, after "or", insert "a".

In line 36, leave out "the case of" and insert "relation to".—[Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett.]

Clause 15.—(MINISTER'S POWER, ON APPLICATION OF POTENTIAL UNDER TAKERS, TO MAKE ORDERS CON FERRING POWERS FOR IMPROVEMENT, CONSTRUCTION, ETC., OF HARBOURS.)

Amendments made: In page 13, line 42, leave out "other than" and insert "not being".

In line 42, after "or", insert "a".

In line 45, after "or", insert "a".

In page 14, line 5, at end insert "and".—[Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett.]

Mr. Mellish: I beg to move, in page 14, line 16, to leave out from powers "to "as" in line 17.
It may be convenient with this to take the Amendment in page 14, line 18, at the end Ito insert:
provided that where the power sought is the power to acquire land compulsorily the application shall be for an order conferring such power on the Council",

This point was raised in Committee by my hat Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy). It is concerned with the powers of the compulsory purchase of land. As it stands, the Clause says:
…may make a written application to the Minister for the making by him of an order conferring on the applicant, some other designated person or a body to be constituted for the purpose by the Order (according a, may be spec field in the application) all such powers (including, in particular, power to acquire land compulsorily) as are requisite for enabling that object to be achieved.
We recognise the need for land to be so compulsorily acquired, but it is unique that in theory and in practice we are to confer that right on a harbour authority or other designated person or body. We thought that it was always an accepted principle that this important power was not to be given to anyone lightly, and was to be given only to local authorities and statutory bodies. We have moved the Amendment not with any intention of dividing the House but in order to have a chance of a further discussion of the point. We should like the Minister further to explain how he envisages the Clause working in its present form. We should like to hear what he has to say, because in Committee the Parliamentary Secretary told us that he was anxious to allay any fears which we might express.

Mr. Marples: I am grateful to the hon. Member for moving the Amendments and so giving me the opportunity to explain how this provision works. The two Amendments would mean that if, in any I arbour empowerment order made under the Clause, it was desired to include a provision authorising the compulsory acquisition of land required for the improvement of an existing harbour or the construction of a new artificial harbour, the land would have to be acquired by the National Ports Council, who would hold it and presumably act as its owners.
The fear in the hon. Member's mind is that a private commercial undertaking may persuade the Minister of Transport of the day, and Parliament, to give it powers of compulsory acquisition in order to develop a new harbour, and may then defeat the original purpose of the order either by reselling all or part of the land which it had acquired compulsorily, or by disposing of the whole


harbour undertaking to another commercial concern, pocketing the profits in the process. I have some sympathy with what I believe is in the hon. Member's mind, but I hope to be able to satisfy the House that the hon. Member's apprehensions are largely groundless, and that the proposal for dealing with the problem in the way that he suggests is not well-founded.
I can put forward three reasons why the Amendments should be resisted. First, a sufficient degree of control in respect of the sale or disposal of a harbour development undertaking as a whole can be achieved by making suitable provision in the empowerment order. As for the disposal of surplus land which may have been compulsorily acquired, this situation should not arise if the Minister does his job properly in making the harbour empowerment order. If it were felt that safeguards were required to prevent surplus land from being disposed of improperly, this could be provided for in the order. Thirdly, in respect of the sale or disposal of a harbour development undertaking as a whole by a commercial concern authorised to construct the works by a harbour empowerment order, I agree that appropriate control is necessary. The question is: what should the proper control be, and how can it be enforced?
In harbour enactments it is common form to provide that the authority shall exercise its power to sell or lease its undertaking only with the previous consent of the Minister. That has been done in the last seven or eight years in almost every case—at least in those that I have been able to discover. Such a concern could dispose of its undertaking by sale or lease only on such terms and conditions as the Minister of the day approved. Therefore, it is clear that the Minister, quite rightly, has tight control.
I can give a number of examples. There was the Esso Petroleum Company Act, 1957, the B.P. Trading Company Act of the same year and the Killingholme Jetty Act, 1963. The House will agree that it is reasonable to assume that any Minister would include such a condition in a harbour empowerment order which gave a commercial concern power to acquire land compulsorily. In this respect the empowerment orders will follow

what has become practically standard form in recent Acts of Parliament of this kind, by providing the same safeguards as have been included in previous Acts.
It would be improper to allow a private concern to have the right compulsorily to acquire land and then to sell either the whole undertaking, or that part which was surplus to its requirements, for another purpose—to build a cinema, or a block of offices, for example. The proper place to provide for this is in the empowerment order.
In the past it has been a powerful deterrent to any developer who thought that he might get something for nothing by way of a compulsory purchase order. The Bill provides that the Minister "may" include provisions of this kind. He is not forced to do so, but he does so in fact. But because every empowerment order covers a wide variety of circumstances, it would be difficult to provide in the Bill precisely what he should do.
I believe that the Minister of the day should be allowed some discretion. I can give the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) an undertaking that I certainly would not agree to an empowerment order which gave a private firm the right compulsorily to acquire property to develop a harbour and then to sell off a nice piece of surplus land at a fat profit. I should certainly provide in the order that the firm could not do such a thing without the consent of the Minister.
Harbour empowerment orders do not rest only with the Minister. There are other safeguards. They are subject to a very elaborate procedure. They have to be publicly advertised, made subject to objections, vetted at a public inquiry, and so on, before they reach Parliament, and then, when they get to Parliament, they have to go through the full rigours of special Parliamentary procedure. It is not a matter which is left solely to the Minister's discretion. Outside bodies and Members of this House are able to make their views known, and to object. Even if a Minister were so misguided as not to have proper safeguards in the order, hon. Members would be able to make their views known.
I agree with what the hon. Member for Bermondsey has in mind, but I believe that the position is adequately


covered by the existing procedure, first, because I do not think that any Minister, of any party, would leave a harbour empowerment order wide open to be exploited in this way and, secondly, because even if he did the procedure which has to be gone through—the public inquiry and the special Parliamentary procedure—would be of a sufficiently searching character to make certain that the power was not abused. With that assurance, I hope that the hon. Member will agree to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. Mellish: I willingly agree. The Minister has gone out of his way to explain this matter in detail and to assure us that there are so many safeguards that the fears that I have expressed are not realistic. In those circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

8.0 p.m.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I beg to move, in page 14, line 20, to leave out "any" and insert "either or both".
With some trepidation, I venture to suggest that this Amendment links up as a drafting Amendment with the next three or the Notice Order Paper. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King) would agree that they should be taken together.

Dr. King: I have no objection.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: They are all drafting Amendments.

Dr. King: I am not criticising the drafting. I am defending the draftsmen against themselves. This Amendment proposes to substitute the words "either or both" for the word "any". This subsection tells a person that he can apply to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to do one or more of a number of things. In all there are seven things that he can do, although they are grouped under two headings.
There are three under the first heading, (a). He can seek
the improvement, maintenance or management of a fishery harbour.
The next heading—(b)—contains four things:
the construction, improvement, maintenance or management of a dock at a fishery harbour or a wharf at such a harbour

Because there are seven things which he can do, the draftsmen, rightly I think, wrote originally:
…where a person is desirous of securing the achievement of any of the following objects, namely,—
then follows the seven things under two groups.
The word "any" makes perfect sense. The Committee and the Minister accepted it. The draftsman wrote it and now he is proposing, for reasons which I know, but which I think are wrong, to substitute the words, "either or both" or "any". That is, three words for one without affecting at all the sense, or, indeed, not improving it. I suggest that the Amendment should not be made

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I confess that I always experience some difficulty when arguing with the hon. Member for Itchen (Dr. King) on the subject of the English language. But without pretending to be able to see into the mind of the Parliamentary draftsman I should have thought that the reason he wanted to put "either or both" is it is followed by (a) or (b).

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 14, line 22, at end insert "and".
In page 14, line 24, after "or", insert "of".
In line 44, leave out "or wharf at a marine work" and insert
at a marine work or a wharf at such a work."—[Vice Admiral Hughes Hallett.]

Clause 17.—(HARBOUR REORGANISATION SCHEMES.)

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I beg to move, in page 17, line 28, leave out "and", and insert "or".
This is one of a group of six Amendments all of which are intended to improve the present drafting and wording of Clause 17.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 17, line 29, leave out "purpose" and insert "purposes".

In line 29, leave out second "and" and insert "or".

In line 30, leave out "and" and insert "or".

In page 18, line 4, leave out second and "and" insert "or".

In line 5, leave out "and" and insert "or".—[Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett.]

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I beg to move, in page 18, line 12, to leave out from "at" to "not" in line 13 and to insert:
a harbour that is comprised in the group or is adjacent to any of the harbours so comprised".
This Amendment runs with the next Amendment in line 15 to leave out, "the first-mentioned "and to insert "that". They are a little more than drafting Amendments. Although the object is to improve the wording of clause 17 (2,e) they make clear that the interests of a person, engaged in harbour operations at a harbour included in or adjacent to a group of harbours unified in a reorganisation scheme may be transferred to the new authority or to one of the statutory harbour authorities in the group.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 18, line 15, leave out "the first-mentioned" and insert "that".

In page 18, line 30, leave out "and" and insert "or".—[Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett.]

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I beg to move, in page 19, line 23, at end to insert:
(7) If at any time it appears to the Minister that any such provision of a harbour reorganisation scheme having effect by virtue of subsection (2) (h) above as adjusts the rights of a person operates or is likely to operate so as to put that person in a worse position than he would have been in had the provision not been included in the scheme, he may by order amend the scheme in such manner as appears to him to secure that that person is or will be in no such worse position".
This Amendment fulfills an undertaking which I gave during the Committee stage proceedings. It will be recalled that some hon. Members expressed concern about the possibility that an adjustment of pension rights under Clause 17(2,h) could prejudicially affect transferred employees. This Amendment is intended to allay those anxieties. It closely follows similar provisions made in Section 74(6,a) of the Transport Act, 1962. Any amending order made by the Minister under this provision would be

subject to annulment by negative Resolution.

Mr. Mellish: I wish to thank the Parliamentary Secretary for keeping his word, as we knew he would, about this matter. I have one question. While this achieves the object of protecting individuals concerned in harbour reorganisations schemes, it would seem ironic that as the Clause now reads a harbour reorganisation scheme may be held up because the position of one person might be worsened. I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary appreciates that point, and I should like him to say something about it. It is almost inevitable that in any reorganisation scheme someone may be hurt in that way. I should like to be sure that it is not the case that a scheme would be held up because someone might find that his position was worsened.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I can give that assurance.

Dr. King: May I thank the Parliamentary Secretary once more for fulfilling the pledge which he gave during the Committee stage this evening. We were anxious that nobody should be put in a worse position or suffer financially because of some reorganisation scheme. I hope that the hon. and gallant Gentleman will look at the wording, because it still appears as if when an individual is affected by a scheme we should alter the scheme rather than compensate the individual, which I am sure is not the intention of the Amendment.
I welcome the Amendment. N.A.L.G.O. and the Docks and Harbours Association pressed for a similar Amendment. It was a case of master and man both wanting it, and they will be extremely grateful to the Minister.

Mr. Jeger: This is what is commonly called a non-detriment Clause, and I wish to know whether it is drafted in what is accepted as common form, or whether the rather obscure wording is different from what is regarded as common form for such Clauses. Can the Parliamentary Secretary give an assurance that he will have another look at this to see that there is no ambiguity? As my hon. Friend has said, a scheme should not be held up pending any adjustment of a section of that schemes involving only one individual.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I confirm that, as I understand it, this is standard form, but I will go into that. My information is that it follows the provisions in the 1962 Act. In reply to the point made by the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King), the reference to amending a scheme means pension adjustments will be part of the scheme. There will be a financial section of the scheme.
I had rather expected an hon. Member to ask why the word "may" is used instead of "shall". I had better answer that, because probably it will be asked. The "may" is, of course, permissive, but one hopes that it will not be necessary for my right hon. Friend to go through this rather elaborate procedure of making an order subject to negative procedure. If such a case comes to light, in 99 cases out of a 100 it would be agreed without hurting anyone at all.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 18.—(ORDERS FOR ESTABLISHING SCHEMES FOR CONTROL OF MOVE MENT OF SHIPS IN HARBOURS.)

Amendment made: In page 19, line 39, after "question", insert "is or"—.[Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett.]

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I beg to n.ove Amendment 64, in page 20, line 4, after "which", to insert:
(subject to any directions to the contrary given under a provision of the order having effect by virtue of the next following paragraph) ".

Mr. Mellish: On a point of order, we have put down the following Amendment, No. 73: in page 21, line 14, at end insert:
(4) A control of movement order containing provision for matters referred to in paragraph
(c) of the foregoing subsection shall not empower any person to prohibit a ship from entering a harbour by reason of the ship not being fitted with equipment specified in the order unless the equipment is required to be fitted in pursuance of an internationally agreed convention accepted by Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom .
I should like to know the position about this. Our Amendment deals with a similar point. I wonder if it should be discussed with the Amendment moved by the Parliamentary Secretary, or taken separately. What is the intention of the Chair?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Robert Grimston): I understood that Amendment No. 66: in page 20, line 11, after second "and", insert:
subject to the next following subsection
and Amen3ment No. 73, in the name of the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish), were to be discussed with the following Amendment: in page 20, line 8, to leave out paragraph (c) and to insert:
(c) empowering such person as may be specified in the order to give directions for securing that ships within the harbour or harbours to which the scheme relates or the approaches ':hereto move only at specified times or during specified periods and to or from specified places, through specified areas, along specified routes or through specified channels
(d) empowering such person as may be specified in the order, in a case in which it appears to him expedient so to do by reason of restriction of visibility by the weather or by the presence of dust or smoke, to prohibit a ship from entering the harbour (or, as the case may be, both or one of the harbours) unless the ship is fitted with such equipment as may be so specified, being—

(i) radio navigational aids (as defined by section 36 of the Merchant Shipping (Safety Convention) Act 1949) of a kind conforming to requirements or standards laid down or recommended by or under any international convention to which the United Kingdom it a party or to standards that have been recommended by any international conference and to which Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom have signified their approval; or
(ii) apparatus of such a kind as aforesaid for transmitting information from the ship or receiving information transmitted thereto.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: Further to that: point of order. I suggest that it would be better to take the Opposition Amendments separately, because unless I misunderstood I do not think the Amendments are all that similar. It seems that here is a group of Amendments in Clause 18 which deal with the working of the scheme as a whole, quite a large number. I suggest that all the following are related: Amendment Nos. 64 and 65, Amendment 67: in page 20, line 17 after "specifying", insert:
(unless the said scheme is expressed by the order to have effect at all times)".
Amendment 68: In page 20, line 18, leave out "the said scheme" and insert "it".
Amendment 69: In page 20, line 21, leave out from "effect" to "and" in line 22.
Amendment 70: In page 20, line 25, at end insert:
(f) specifying the place at which the equipment by means of which the said scheme is to be put into effect is to be installed, if it is to be installed on land, or, if it is to be installed in a ship or vehicle, the place at which the ship or vehicle is to be moored or stationed.
Amendment 79: In page 22, line 28, leave out "in which" and insert:
or vehicle in which or any ship or aircraft on board of which".
Amendment 80: In page 23, line 3, after "that", insert:
in exercise of powers conferred by paragraph (b) above".
I think the Opposition Amendments raise much wider issues, unless I have misunderstood, and that it would be more convenient to discuss them separately.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The debate can be wide, but the Opposition Amendments have not been selected and it is the decision that they can be discussed with the Government Amendments. I understand that they would fall if the Government Amendments were accepted. They are not selected, but can be discussed.

Mr. Mellish: Can they not only be discussed but, if necessary, voted upon?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: No, I think they fall if the Government Amendment is accepted.

Mr. Mellish: It is important to get this clear. In our view, our Amendments are much stronger than the Government Amendments. We think our wording is right and our intentions are right, although possibly we would not wish to oppose the Government. We have had this problem earlier today and we would wish to divide the House if the Government were not able to accept our wording. If we were allowed to discuss our Amendments with the Government Amendment we could perhaps have a separate vote.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I understand that the first Amendment in the name of the hon. Member, Amendment No. 66, is a paving one for Amendment No. 73,

and that the first falls if the Government Amendment is accepted. It therefore follows that the other Amendment would fall as well. The point is whether the hon. Member would wish to divide the House on the other Amendment. We had better have the discussion of the Amendments together and I shall consider about a Division later when we have heard the discussion.

8.15 p.m.

Commander Pursey: I should like Amendment No. 73 taken separately. This Clause has a number of subsections and the first series of Amendments is to subsection (4). Amendment No. 73 deals with a separate subject, with relation to a ship entering a harbour and lack of equipment. I submit that that Amendment should be taken on its merits, separately.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think we should start as suggested, I understand that at present we are Amendment No. 64.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: Amendment No. 64 is a paving Amendment to the Amendment which immediately follows. Perhaps I may discuss Amendment No. 65 at the same time, or is it proposed that we should vote on No. 64?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am still not quite clear how it might affect discussions in connection with Amendments Nos. 66 and 73.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: The meat in the Government's Amendments is to be found in Amendment No. 55. That claims most of the importance, and Amendment No. 64 is a paving Amendment to it. Perhaps we could take the two Amendments together?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: If Amendment No. 64 is taken now, can the Minister tell me that it does not prejudice anything which may be done subsequently about the Amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Bermondsey? If so we should take it separately and dispose of it.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I think the position would be that if the Opposition were able to persuade us to accept the principle of Amendment No. 73 we should have to agree to make necessary drafting Amendments later in another


place. They would be only drafting Amendments because, as you pointed out, Amendment No. 66 will fall it Amendment No. 65 is accepted because the numbering of the subsections would be changed.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think it would be probably better to discuss all together Amendments Nos. 64, 65, 66 and 73.

Mr. Mellish: I am happy to do that, but when we come to our Amendments we should like to have the right to vote on them. Otherwise we should be in an invidious position.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The point I am not quite clear about is that if the Government Amendment No. 65 is accepted as presumably it will be I understand that Amendment No. 66 would be lost. I am not clear about No. 73 but perhaps that will emerge in the course of the discussion.

Mr. Mellish: The Government Amendments come before ours and, if they are passed, as we assume they will be, because hordes of hon. Members will no doubt come in, our Amendments could not be voted upon. I do not know what will be said in debate, but at the end of the day, to show our disapproval and how we feel about this matter we may vote against the Government merely because we think our wording would be better.

Dr. King: Further to that point of order. I rarely intervene on points of order, Sir Robert, but may I respectfully suggest to you that while the debate is proceeding you should examine the contention which some of us make that it would be possible to make both Amendment No. 65 and Amendment No. 73 to the Bill. Since it would be possible to do so, it might be in order for us to have an opportunity to vote on Amendment. No. 73 when we reach it.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: My difficulty has been to know exactly where we are on the Amendments. I hope that that will emerge in the course of the discussion.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I beg to move, in page 20, line 4, after "which'' to insert:
(subject to any directions to the contrary given under a provision of the order having effect by virtue of the next following paragraph)".

In moving the Amendment I think that it would be convenient to the House to discuss with it the next Amendment, in page 20, line 8. Indeed, after the exchanges on points of order I am sure that would be the best way to proceed—to consider the main changes which we propose to make in the control of movement procedure. These changes are designed to allay the fears which were expressed in Committee without, at the same time detracting in any way from the essential object behind the Clause, which is to supplement a radar information service such as already exists in a number of our harbours by effective control of the timing and routing of vessels entering and leaving the harbour concerned, and also by enabling the control authority to prevent vessels from entering or leaving if they do not possess the means of communicating with the radar information station and thus benefiting from the information service.
The new paragraph (c) makes it clear that the control authority cannot "con" ships, to use the technical term, but can control only the timing and routing of other movements. As I said on Second Reading and several times in Committee, we have never intended that orders to the rudders and engines of vessels should be given from the shore, but, having said that, I would add that it is true that the Clause in its original form would permit the making of a control order en those lines. I concede that at once. But I repeat that the new wording which we propose rules this completely out, as hon. Members will see if they study it with the care with which, indeed, I am sure they have already studied it.
The new paragraph (d) restricts the powers to prohibit a ship without the requisite equipment from entering or leaving in periods of low visibility. The reason why some rewording was necessary was that in Committee we accepted an Amendment, which I think was a good Amendment, moved by the hon. and gallant Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Commander Pursey), which struck out the reference to low visibility in the governing words at the beginning of the Clause so that the low visibility requirement is now linked specifically with the power to prevent ships from entering until the visibility improves.
Paragraph (d) also makes a further restriction on what can be done in these orders because it restricts the equipment which may be specified to types of radar or radio telephone which conform to standards already recognised by international agreement. In passing, we do not expect ship-borne radar to be mentioned in control of movement orders in the foreseeable future. However, technical progress is swift, and we have been strongly recommended by our technical advisers that we ought to look ahead and to write a provision into the Bill so that in due course we can take advantage of it.
The point which is important is that if the Amendment is accepted no order can be made specifying equipment which is peculiar to this country. That, I think, was the fear of Opposition spokesmen in Committee, who felt that if this were done other countries might follow suit. I gather that hon. Members opposite also have some fears about new equipment, but, with respect, they have no grounds for this, because we have specifically restricted the power to equipment already included in conventions agreeing to certain listed types of equipment—conventions which the great majority of countries have acceded to and ratified.
I had better go no further than this at the moment. The other important change which we are making in the Clause is in relation to specifying the equipment required by a control authority, but that arises under Amendment No. 70 which we are not discussing at present. Perhaps I may stop there and ask the House to approve the Amendment I have moved and the following one.

Commander Pursey: I understand that we can discuss at the same time Amendments Nos. 66 and 73, with the object of their being moved later.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not think that that will be possible. I have had certain consultations, and if No. 65 is accepted it will not be possible for the others to be moved. The only way in which the hon. and gallant Member can register support of them is by voting against Amendment No. 65.

Commander Pursey: All I wish to get clear was that we are free to discuss all four Amendments.
First, I want to take up some points which the Parliamentary Secretary made about radar. Later, I shall show that in some ports information services may be sufficient without radar and that there are certain objections to radar. The question of restriction on equipment is also a matter of opinion but, having put it on the record, I cannot go on disputing it.
Amendment No. 73 deals specifically with control of movement orders. It says that such an order
shall not empower any person to prohibit a ship from entering a harbour by reason of the ship not being fitted with equipment…
It may be true that many United Kingdom ships have such equipment but, for example in the Thames, as hon. Members can see from the Terrace, 40 per cent. of the traffic consists of small ships and estuarial craft, and probably more than half of it does not have the aids suggested. What is to be the dividing line between the size and type of ship in which it will be insisted that special equipment must be fitted and the size and type of vessel which will be exempt because so far, even in Committee, this sort of exemption has not been mentioned?
8.30 p.m.
Bearing in mind the principle which is involved, have the possible international repercussions been considered on the imposing of unilateral requirements to fit equipment by the back door, as it were? If we in Britain take this action, and ships are obliged to be fitted with this equipment, may not the masters and others responsible, who may be taken to court and punished, have some complaint to make? May not similar action be taken by other countries against the owners of British vessels if our ships are not fitted with certain specified equipment?
The experts have suggested that ships fitted with radar but without v.h.f. radiotelephony are a potential menace, particularly in the context of the control scheme we are considering. I will not go into the technicalities of this. We must also consider the question of shipowners having the choice of two alternative ports at which to unload, one where this sort of equipment is required and the other where there does not operate a control of movement


order. In such cases owners of vessels without this equipment will be encouraged to go to ports where they are not likely to get into trouble.
The organisation concerned with this matter objects to this form of compulsion and they call in aid the fact that keen shipowners appreciate the benefit of being able to take part in port information services. These services have spread because of the voluntary installation of v.h.f. equipment in ships. It is interesting to note, for example, that according to the Thames Information Service, in June, 1960, only 17 per cent. of vessels passing the Nore used the service, although the percentage has been steadily rising. In December, 1960, 27 per cent. used the service. In 1961, it was 40 per cent., 1962, 49 per cent. and, in 1963, 54 per cent. used it. This is another indication of the increasing extent to which v.h.f. equipment is being fitted to ships. It is worth mentioning that by 30th May, 1961, British equipment of this sort had been fitted into 550 foreign ships and that by 16th November, 1962, 1,095 foreign vessels were so fitted.
The argument advanced is that this installation of equipment is going on successfully by voluntary means so why, they wonder, do the Government wish to introduce this element of compulsion and draft the Bill in such a way that entry may be refused to British ships—more important, to foreign ships—if they do not have a certain type of equipment.
The Parliamentary Secretary referred to what might be called the specification aspect of this. Despite the sort of unilateral requirement to fit this equipment into ships and considering the rapid pace at which v.h.f. equipment is being installed in both United Kingdom and foreign vessels, British shipowners are strongly urging that any compulsion under the Bill should not enable harbour authorities to prohibit the entry of a ship because of its lack of equipment unless and until the right of harbour authorities to exercise this power has been recognised internationally and a specification for the equipment to be adopted is also recognised internationally.
I know that the Parliamentary Secretary will reply that, if we are to wait

for international agreement, we may wait indefinitely. Who is to know that? Without these movement and control orders, there has been a speedy fitting of certain equipment. Before there is any question of insisting that certain equipment should be used, it should be specifically stated what types of equipment are suitable.
Today I had Questions on the Order Paper to the Postmaster-General and the Minister of Transport, but they were not reached. As I have been giving my attention to the Bill, I am not yet clear what the Answers are. However, the Postmaster General has said in an Answer that certain types of equipment are available. The contrary is also implied, that, if the types of equipment are not those on the Postmaster-General's approved list, they will not be acceptable by port authorities. I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that this position is not as simple and clear-cut and that the authorities which will be responsible for fitting the equipment are not happy about it.
The equipment has to deal with two ends. The re is the question of ships at the seagoing end and where pilot cutters are used at the estuary, like there are on the Humber. We might say that they are at the receiving end. Then there is the question of the equipment to be used at the shore installation. There are certain limitations by virtue of range, which the Postmaster-General controls, because every type of ship and pilot cutter cannot have sets, even of the same type, with different ranges of excessive length. The same thing applies with dock authorities, particularly where there are several docks, and docks on both sides of an estuary, as there are, for instance, at Hull and on the other side of the river at Immingham.
Therefore, I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to look at this again. Even if he cannot answer all the questions I have put and clear up the matter completely—I do not expect him to off the cuff tonight—he should arrange before the Bill is dealt with in another place to inform the authorities concerned—dock and harbour authorities from the point of view of shore installations, and shipowners and masters—what types are available, what should be fitted, and what exceptions can be made


to foreign vessels arriving here if they have a satisfactory set. Will there be any instance of a foreign vessel arriving in the Humber with a perfectly satisfactory and efficient set, from the point of view of being able to communicate and from the point of view of having a limited range, being turned away because it does not satisfy our specifications or is not on our official list?
If that sort of cold war is to be started in shipping circles, there is no question but that the British Government will be in trouble with foreign vessels coming to this country, and it may well be that British ships will be in trouble when visiting foreign ports.

Dr. King: This debate is a continuation of the debate we had at great length in Committee about the control of movement of ships in harbours. The Parliamentary Secretary or the Minister, or both of them, are the only people in the country who want to give landsmen control over captains and pilots bringing ships into harbour. Let that be quite clear. The Minister has failed to reply to the question I put to him much earlier today, when I asked him to tell me one body of men in the country who really want this control of movement.
One of the Amendments we are considering improves the Clause slightly in a direction for which we asked in Committee. One of the Amendments, as I hope to show the Committee, makes it even worse. We opposed the Clause in Committee; we voted against it. We sought to improve it. In Committee we got the Minister to accept some improvements. We got him to undertake to look at some of the Amendments we suggested, and at least one of them is before us in part of the Amendment in page 20, line 8.
The classic case—and this has a bearing on paragraph (c)—was put by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Commander Pursey), when he told the Committee:
It is one thing for a harbour master to say that he should enter"—
that is, the captain:
even at a certain time. It is another thing if the harbour master were to say that he may enter. We are concerned as to where

the responsibility lies and who makes the executive decision. If the harbour master"—
and for "harbour master" we may read the Control of Movement Committee which the Minister is to set up:
is going to be given the authority to make the executive decision, not in fine weather but in weather of low visibility, then the argument of everybody concerned—Chamber of Shipping, ship-owners, masters and pilots flatly state this is wrong…The crux of our argument here is that the master should decide on the advice of the pilot, if he has a pilot. They have nothing in common except that they want to get the ship in."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee F, 4th February, 1964; c. 450.]
The new paragraph (d), to some extent gives us what we asked for, but it does not cover the matter so widely as would our Amendment in page 21, line 14—No. 73—which we are also discussing but on which we cannot vote. The new paragraph (d) puts a limitation according to international convention on the kinds of equipment that can be used in visibility conditions of dust and smoke. Our Amendment would have gone wider than that.
Nevertheless, it is clear that the Government have accepted our argument that if we insist on any ship having any kind of radar or v.h.f. equipment, that equipment must conform to some international convention. We believe that it would be idle, impertinent and dangerous for Britain to try to lay down the kinds of equipment that any foreign ship coming to this country should use. As we said in Committee, if that were done, the Dutch, the Germans or anyone else could also insist on their own kinds of equipment, and we could have international anarchy. We therefore said to the Minister, "If you are to specify equipment, that equipment must be internationally agreed upon." The Minister has agreed.
Originally, the Clause was even worse. It could have been taken not only to specify v.h.f. or radar as being on a ship, but almost to specify the particular make or brand of radar or v.h.f. The new paragraph (d) gets rid of that difficulty; there is no insistence on equipment unless there is international agreement.
One of the troubles was that the wording of the original Clause made it possible—and the Parliamentary Secretary agreed in Committee that I was


right—to confuse the equipment specified for use in harbour and on land and the kind to be used in the ship. That point has been cleared up, or almost cleared up, but I suggest that there is still some ambiguity in the Government's Amendment in page 20, line 25—No. 70 in the Notice Paper. The ship there referred to is obviously the fixed ship and not the ship dealt with in the control of movement orders.
I mention that because I think that paragraph (d) would be better placed quite apart from those subsections of Clause 1 that deal with what we call the "scheme". There would then be no possibility of ambiguity about the difference between the kind of equipment that is used on land—where I think that the Minister has an absolute right, and is wise, to specify the kind of radar, and the rest, to be used—or in fixed ships or vehicles, and the very limited enforcement of equipment on ships coming into and going out of harbours.
8.45 p.m.
Paragraph (d), on the other hand, is quite different. We are back to the old problem about which the captains and the masters of ships are terribly worried. Over and over again, the Minister himself has said that he wants no detailed control of the master or pilot. In Committee the Parliamentary Secretary said that there is
no intention of taking away the actual handling of the ship from the control of the master, acting on the advice of the pilot".
In the same speech, the hon. and gallant Gentleman said:
Once we write words into the Bill, it will not he easy to change them if the courts interpret them in a way we had not foreseen".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee F. 4th February, 1964; c. 441–2.]
I direct the hon. and gallant Gentleman's attention to paragraph (c) and ask him what is left to the captain's initiative when we empower the control of movement authority to empower
such person as may be specified in the order"—
and he will be a landsman not a seaman—
to give directions for securing that ships within the harbour or harbours to which the scheme relates or the approaches thereto move only at specified times or during specified periods and to or from specified places,

through specified areas, along specified route; or through specified channels".
The only thing left out is a specified captain to carry out the specified instructions in what I regard as a ridiculous Amendment. It goes far beyond anything that even the Minister himself nerds in his control of movement order.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East said in Committee that he did not mind arrangements being made about timing. If we accept paragraph (c) in its present form, we shall be tying the captains of our shim in a way against which they would indignantly protest. I hope that the Minister will have still further thoughts about it before the Bill leaves another place.

Mr. Mellish: We thought that our Amendment in page 21, line 14, to insert a new subsection (4) was a better Amendment because, referring to equipment, it uses the words—
unless the equipment is required to be fitted in pursuance of an internationally agreed convention".
In the Government Amendment, the words do not have the same impact and assurance as the reference to an international convention. It reads:
of a kind conforming to requirements or standards laid down or recommended by or under any international convention".
We say that the equipment must be entirely agreed by all the countries before we ask our own ships or foreign ships to have it.
I put another point to the Parliamentary Secretary now. The Mercantile Marine Service Association, which represents, I understand, many of our masters of ships to lay, bitterly complains that the Minister has still not consulted it personally as an organisation about these matters. The Merchant Navy and Airline Officer' Association is still concerned ever about the Minister's own Amendment. I should be the first to agree that he has gone a long way to try to meet the point of view we expressed in Committee. I know that one of these organisations is allied to the T.U.C., but I would not have thought that the other one was. I find it bewildering in trying to understand why these organisations were not consulted. I know that the Parliamentary Secretary


has a "thing" about safety, and I commend him on it. He is to be admired for giving a lead. He has always adopted the attitude that if one tried to get agreement between all these organisations one would never arrive at an agreed form of words. I understand that. However, why we have not had a "get together" on safety at sea at Ministry of Transport level I cannot understand. The Opposition would willingly have had one, because there is no party politics in that matter.
As my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, East (Commander Pursey) and my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King) have said, we concede at once that the Government have gone a long way to relieving the genuine fears about the control of movement. In spite of that, however, there are still very grave fears. We shall wait to hear what the Parliamentary Secretary has to say, but if we vote against the Government's Amendment it will be because we are not able to vote for our own.
I readily appreciate the trouble to which the Parliamentary Secretary personally has gone in trying to meet the points concerning safety at sea. Later we shall discuss the penalties which arise from this part of the Bill and other parts. Some hon. Members opposite have Amendments down on that subject. I hope that they take the point that we can get into a great deal of bother on the question of equipment, particularly abroad. It has been put to me that our friends in Ghana—I assume that they are our friends; I am not sure who are our friends these days; we seem to be sending our troops all over the world to look after someone or other—have different standards about justice. It seems that they have a very happy procedure by which if they do not approve of the decisions given by the judges they sack them. As a democrat, that seems to me a bit odd. But imagine what would happen if, because equipment was not being used properly a Ghanaian sailor—

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: The hon. Member has moved off the Amendments on to the penal Clauses. I thought that we were to discuss those subsequently.

Mr. Mellish: Certainly. But if these people do not have the sort of equipment which is being demanded here and, as a consequence, disobey a control of movement order they can find themselves being punished, as a result of which certain things will be done. We will argue about the question of punishment in a moment. My hon. Friend the Member for Itchen will have a great deal to say about it, as will I think some hon. Members opposite.
This is why the Merchant Navy officers are frightened and worried. They say that if a Ghanaian ship does not have the equipment which the Parliamentary Secretary says it should have and it gets into trouble with our courts—I am not arguing what penalties will be imposed—what will happen to a British ship entering a port in Ghana if a case concerning it goes before the local Ghanaian court? Would that court be reasonably generous?
The Parliamentary Secretary keeps talking about radio aboard ship and getting messages through. Does the Amendment in page 20, line 25, make it perfectly clear that there will be all the necessary apparatus on shore? I am told that quite a few harbours do not have this apparatus. Do not let us start talking about sending messages from ships if there is not all the equipment which is required on land. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to tell us why words such as those in our Amendment cannot be put in his Amendment.
I have been critical. This was inevitable because of the representations made to us by the people responsible for our Merchant Navy. This sort of thing always happens when somebody tries to do what is basically a good thing. I admit that anyone who tries to do something of this kind will get into trouble, but at least the Parliamentary Secretary tried and we appreciate what he has done. I recognise that he has gone a long way to meeting what most of us on this side wanted, but we do not think that he has gone far enough. If we vote because we have not had a satisfactory reply, I hope that it will be clearly understood why.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: What impresses me most is that it is apparent that I have come no nearer than I did


on the first day we ever discussed this flatter in explaining what it is about. I do not think that even the hon. and gallant Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Commander Pursey) has any clear mental picture of what is involved in these schemes. I will deal last with the important question of the Amendment in page 21, line 14, and the question of international agreement.
The hon. and gallant Member talked about a dividing line between ships which would have to have the equipment and those which would not, and how it would be decided. Nobody is compelled to have the equipment. The power that is taken in the Clause is to write into a control of movement order a rule that ships which are unable to communicate with the control station must wait in conditions of fog or low visibility to which the Parliamentary draftsman thought it wise to add smoke or dust. There is a clear reason for doing this.
I have made inquiries of some of the ports which already have these voluntary schemes. In the Port of London, we are advised that ships which do not have radio communication with the information centre anchor in the channels and cause considerable difficulty and even danger to moving traffic. They usually close the port in the process. There is no means of warning them that they are getting into difficulty and that the weather is thicker than they think. Old Captain So-and-so says that he knows how to smell his way into the harbour. So he may, but in the process he will close the route to everybody else. This happens with the ships which are permitted to go into the extra narrow channels. It makes nonsense of all the expensive equipment which is installed to advise these ships how to move in safety.

Mr. Mellish: Does the Parliamentary Secretary deny that 40 per cent. of the small craft coming into the Thames with cargo are not fitted with this equipment?

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I am surprised that the percentage is not more, but I shall come to that presently when I reach the question of the dividing line.
I wish to refute some of the suggestions that there is no need for this arrangement. Southampton informs us that there have been occasions, as one

would expect, when ships without v.h.f. have anchored and caused delays to other traffic. There have been occasions when ships without v.h.f. could not be warned that conditions were more difficult than was thought at the other end of the channel, with resultant danger. In Liverpool, from which we have the Host accurate statistics, it appears that during 1963 there were 23 separate different occasions in fog when ships without v.h.f. anchored and caused congestion and stoppage for 131 vessels. That is serious quite apart from all the danger involved.
The hon and gallant Member for Kingston upon Hull, East spoke about dividing files. It is impossible to answer his question generally with precision everywhere, because it will depend upon the individual control of movement order, which in turn depends upon the harbour. It may be that the big ship channel is delineated by buoys and bounded by the depth of the water. In that case, there may be plenty of shallower water either side of the channel. In that event, the local authority, in making the control of movement order, would probably apply it to ships wanting to move in the deep water part of the channel. The small ships without equipment could be told that they could move as long as they kept one side or other of the main channel.
It may be a purely artificial channel. In some cases, it may be a broad estuary with plenty of deep water everywhere, and this is what is allowed for in paragraph (b) by laying down in advance, where appropriate, certain routes, which might be called one-way streets, such as my right hon. Friend establishes for the great advantage of traffic moving in London.
It may seem extraordinary to hon. Members that this is not already done in congested harbours. The reason is because the authorities have not the power in many cases to do it. We are giving them that power. Subsection 3(c) was criticised by the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King), and I absolutely reject his criticism as being entirely wide of the mark. Subsection 3(c) permits what one might call the standing instructions to be varied to suit the conditions. It may be that the


channel normally used by vessels entering the harbour is blocked by a ship running aground or sunk in it. Not unnaturally, when that happens it is necessary for the harbour authorities to have the power to tell ships to use the other channel. If it is a channel which is too narrow for big ships to pass in, then they will have to specify times—this is where timing comes in—when the channel is open to ships entering or leaving. It is not true to say that these things can all be arranged by mutual agreement—they cannot. There are dangerous situations which are produced, and we are not the only country that is thinking about it.
9.0 p.m.
Indeed, on the very day that the Opposition divided against Clause 18, in Committee, when I got back to the Ministry of Transport I read an account in the paper Fairplay, a shipping paper, of a report which had just been submitted by a committee of inquiry set up by the American Secretary of State for Commerce on this very subject. They have been more unlucky than we have. They have had some disastrous collisions involving tankers in estuaries. That committee recommended the establishment of a system of control not unlike what we are doing now.

Mr. Mellish: It is unilateral.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: That may be terrible to the hon. Gentleman, but it is not to me. After all, this is inside a country's own territorial waters. We are not talking about doing something in international waters.
I will refer to some of the reasons given against doing this, unilaterally as the hon. Gentleman calls it. It was said that the masters of ships which had not the equipment would be liable to the penal section of this Clause for disobeying orders. There is no need for them to disobey the control order merely because they have not the equipment. All they require to do is to wait until the weather clears, which probably they would have to do in any case if they had not the equipment. But the authority responsible for movement—in reply to the hon. Member for Itchen, there will now be pilots on that authority—will not permit any ships in

the channel unless they know, not merely think, that the channel will be cleared during the course of the movement.
A great deal has been said about the nature of the equipment chiefly by the hon. and gallant Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Commander Pursey). There is no question of British equipment being specified. The international agreement to which I have referred and to which reference is made in subsection (3,d), which I think is perfectly clear, does not specify that the equipment must be made by Messrs. Bloggs. It specifies that the wave lengths and frequencies on which the equipment operates shall ensure that it can "talk". In fact, I think that all ships carrying v.h.f. have already equipment which conforms with what is agreed in the 1959 Geneva Convention, which is the most up-to-date one.
Hon. Members who followed the features of the "Lakonia" disaster will recollect that the rescue ships in the neighbourhood were able to communicate with each other as they approached. How does the House imagine that this was done? It was done on the radio telephone, and the reason they were on the same frequency was that there is an international agreement to use the same frequency.
I referred to it in Committee. We did not put it in the Bill originally because nobody but a lunatic would make a control order specifying equipment other than had been agreed internationally. Now we have written this into the Statute and apparently met the views of hon. Members who think that these orders may be made only by lunatics.
The hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen said that my right hon. Friend and I were the only people who wanted movement orders. If so, we need not argue about whether they are right or wrong because there will not be any. No power is given to my right hon. Friend to impose an order. The initiative is left entirely to the harbour authority. Therefore, there is no need for anyone to worry about whether that statement is true.
The hon. Gentleman revived the old hare about ships being compelled to enter even if they did not want to. He


is usually so fair. There is no need to worry about this. Subsection (c), the operative one, is quite clear. It says:
movement of ships within the harbour or harbours to which the scheme relates and the approaches thereto and, where it appears…expedient to do so, to prohibit a ship from entering
and the next subsection refers to the movement taking place only at specified times. It does not say the vessels are to move at specified times. It says they are to move only at specified times. In other words, they are not to move at times which are not specified.
Furthermore, as I am sure the House knows, the special defence provided for a little later in the Bill gives adequate scope for defence if the master has reason to think that the order would endanger his ship or if it is impracticable to conform with the order. I submit that the objections which have been raised are so many mare's nests.
I now come to the last Amendment. My reading of it is that it is entirely different from anything that we are suggesting. My reading of it is that it says that Britain must not proceed with any arrangements to improve safety and movements in her harbours until she can get international agreement to do so. Thus, the whole of the edifice of orders and controls and so on would be dependent upon international agreement.
I repeat what I said in Committee that in practice that is a wrecking Amendment. I am sure that the Opposition would be right to vote against the Clause if that is what they really believe. I can say that if we were told that we must not proceed with this scheme until we had secured international agreement, the last thing we should do would be to tie our hands by writing the details of a movement order into a Statute now. After all, a Statute normally comes after international agreement, so that one can ratify the agreement, not the other way round.
As I said in Committee, all the practical international shipping agreements that have been reached have followed and not preceded the practice. I do not see any chance of getting an international agreement between a number of countries for schemes of control of this nature until anyhow some of

the leading maritime powers—and we are the leading maritime power—have taken the step of putting such a scheme into practice and gained experience of it. It would be very difficult to get an international agreement conjured up in vacuo, so to speak.
I have spoken long enough—possibly too long—to explain the Government's point of view about this matter. I hope that the Opposition will accept anyhow the principle that what we are trying to does right.

Mr. Mellish: If I may speak again by leave of the House, I should like to point out, first, that we did not consider that cur Amendment was a wrecking one. We believed that it dealt only with the narrow point in regard to the type of equipment that should be used in the shin s. With regard to whether there should be orders, we agree that some system should be devised to deal with safety
The hon. and gallant Gentleman did not deal with the point of whether there had been consultations with the people who count—masters, the Merchant Navy Officers' Association, and so on. All of this has been ignored. I say frankly to the Minister and the House that our Amendment did not come from Transport House, thought up by some political pundit. It was put down at the request of those who are responsible for the Merchant Navy Fleet. That being so, in accordance with what I said earlier, because we cannot vote on our own Amendment we shall vote against the Clause.

Mr. Humphrey Atkins: There is one small point about which I am not clear. I was interested in the remarks of my hon and gallant Friend about the case of the smaller vessels which are not fitted with the specified equipment and how he envisage; an order will work in that in effect, they will be debarred from using the bigger channels and will be allowed to use the ones with less water so that they can move about without endangering shipping.
There may be a small vessel not fitted with the specified equipment which would there 'ore be debarred from entering harbour under certain conditions of visibility. How would it know whether


or not it was allowed to enter? It could assume that, visibility being limited, it should keep to one side, but I do not follow the procedure proposed because the vessel, not having the specified equipment, would not be able to get in touch with the shore and there would be no signals on land to indicate to it what it must do. How would it know what to do?

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: My hon. Friend has been in the Navy himself and will know that there are such things as sailing directions in which one finds various instructions about the use of harbours. No doubt there will be notices to mariners about control of movement in harbours and stating that, generally speaking, when visibility is at a certain level, a certain channel must not be entered by ships which cannot communicate with the control station.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed: In page 20, line 8, leave out paragraph (c) and insert:
(c) empowering such person as may be specified in the order to give directions for securing that ships within the harbour or harbours to which the scheme relates or the approaches thereto move only at specified

times or during specified periods and to or from specified places, through specified areas, along specified routes or through specified channels;
(d) empowering such person as may be specified in the order, in a case in which it appears to him expedient so to do by reason of restriction of visibility by the weather or by the presence of dust or smoke, to prohibit a ship from entering the harbour (or, as the case may be, both or one of the harbours) unless the ship is fitted with such equipment as may be so specified, being—

(i) radio navigational aids (as defined by section 36 of the Merchant Shipping (Safety Convention) Act 1949) of a kind conforming to requirements or standards laid down or recommended by or under any international convention to which the United Kingdom is a party or to standards that have been recommended by any international conference and to which Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom have signified their approval; or
(ii) apparatus of such a kind as aforesaid for transmitting information from the ship or receiving information transmitted thereto.—[Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett.]

Question, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill, put and negatived.

Question put, That the proposed words be there inserted in the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 195, Noes 142.

Division No. 37.]
AYES
[9.11 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Dalkeith, Earl of
Hiley, Joseph


Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)
Dance, James
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)


Allason, James
Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F.
Hirst, Geoffrey


Anderson, D. C.
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Quintin


Arbuthnot, Sir John
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Holland, Philip


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Doughty, Charles
Hollingworth, John


Atkins, Humphrey
Duncan, Sir James
Hornby, R. P.


Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)
Duthie, Sir William (Banff)
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.


Barlow, Sir John
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Howard, John (Southampton, Test)


Barter, John
Elliott, R.W.(Newc'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John


Batsford, Brian
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Hughes-Young, Michael


Bidgood, John C.
Farey-Jones, F. W.
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Biffen, John
Farr, John
Iremonger, T. L.


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Finlay, Graeme
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Bishop, Sir Patrick
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
James, David


Bourne-Arton, A.
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Jennings, J. C.


Box, Donald
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)


Braine, Bernard
Gibson-Watt, David
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)


Brewis, John
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, Central)
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Glover, Sir Douglas
Kimball, Marcus


Bryan, Paul
Goodhart, Philip
Kirk, Peter


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Goodhew, Victor
Kitson, Timothy


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Grant-Ferris, R.
Lambton, Viscount


Carr, Rt. Hon. Robert
Green, Alan
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Cary, Sir Robert
Grosvenor, Lord Robert
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Channon, H. P. G.
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Lindsay, Sir Martin


Chataway, Christopher
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Linstead, Sir Hugh


Chichester-Clark, R.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Litchfield, Capt. John


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)


Cleaver, Leonard
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Loveys, Walter H.


Cooke, Robert
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn


Cooper, A. E.
Harvie Anderson, Miss
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Costain, A. P.
Hastings, Stephen
McLaren, Martin


Coulson, Michael
Hay, John
McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia


Critchley, Julian
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
MaClay, Rt. Hon. John


Curran, Charles
Hendry, Forbes
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute &amp; N. Ayrs)




McMaster, Stanley R.
Pym, Francis
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. Peter


Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Maitland, Sir John
Ramsden, James
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Markham, Major Sir Frank
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Marshall, Sir Douglas
Rees, Hugh (Swansea, W.)
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Cordon


Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Ridsdale, Julian
Turner, Colin


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Russell, Sir Ronald
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Scott-Hopkins, James
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Miscampbell, Norman
Shaw, M.
Vane, W. M. F.


Montgomery, Fergus
Skeet, T. H. H.
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Morgan, William
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)
Vickers, Miss Joan


Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Speir, Rupert
Walder, David


Neave, Airey
Stainton, Keith
Walker, Peter


Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard
Stevens, Geoffrey
Wall, Patrick


Oakshott, Sir Hendrie
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S)
Ward, Dame Irene


Osborn, John (Hallam)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm
Webster, David


Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Storey, Sir Samuel
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Page, John (Harrow, West)
Studholme, Sir Henry
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Page, Graham (Crosby)
Summers, Sir Spencer
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Tapsell, Peter
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Partridge, E.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)
Wise, A. R.


Peel, John
Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Taylor, Sir William (Bradford, N.)
Woodhouse, C. M.


Pitman, Sir James
Teeling, Sir William
Worsley, Marcus


Pitt, Dame Edith
Temple, John M.
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Pounder, Rafton
Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)



Powell, Rt Hon. J. Enoch
Thompson, Sir Kenneth (Walton)
TFXLERS FOR THE AYES:


Prior, J. M. L.
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
Mr. MacArthur and




Mr. Jasper More.




NOES


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Pentland, Norman


Awbery, Stan (Bristol, Central)
Hilton, A. V.
Popplewell, Ernest


Bacon, Miss Alice
Holt, Arthur
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Barnett, Guy
Houghton, Douglas
Probert, Arthur


Beaney, Alan
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry


Benn, Anthony Wedgwood
Hoy, James H.
Randall, Harry


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Redhead, E. C.


Benson, Sir George
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Blackburn, F.
Hunter, A. E.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Blyton, William
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)


Boardman, H.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Janner, Sir Barnett
Ross, William


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H.W. (Leics, S.W.)
Jeger, George
Silkin, John


Bowles, Frank
Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Bradley, Tom
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Skeffington, Arthur


Brockway, A. Fenner
Kelley, Richard
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Kenyon, Clifford
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C)
King, Dr. Horace
Small, William


Callaghan, James
Lawson, George
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Snow, Julian


Cliffe, Michael
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Sorensen, R. W.


Collick, Percy
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Lipton, Marcus
Spriggs, Leslie


Cronin, John
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Steele, Thomas


Dalyell, Tarn
McBride, N.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Stonehouse, John


Davies, Harold (Leek)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Stones, William


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Manuel, Archie
Swingler, Stephen


Dempsey, James
Mapp, Charles
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Diamond, John
Mason, Roy
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Dodds, Norman
Mellish, R. J.
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)


Duffy, A. E. P. (Come Valley)
Mendelson, J. J.
Thornton, Ernest


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Millan, Bruce
Thorpe, Jeremy


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Milne, Edward
Tomney, Frank


Fitch, Alan
Mitchison, G. R.
Wade, Donald


Fletcher, Eric
Morris, Charles (Openshaw)
Warbey, William


Foley, Maurice
Mulley, Frederick
Weitzman, David


Forman, J. C.
Neal, Harold
White, Mrs. Eirene


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Whitlock, William


Galpern, Sir Myer
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)
Wilkins, W. A.


Gourlay, Harry
O'Malley, B. K.
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Grey, Charles
Oswald, Thomas
Winterbottom, R. E.


Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Owen, Will
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Harman, William
Pargiter, G. A.
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Harper, Joseph
Parker, John



Hayman, F. H.
Parkin, B. T.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Ifor Davies and Mr. McCann.

Further Amendments made: In page 20, line 17, after "specifying", insert:
(unless the said scheme is expressed by the order to have effect at all times)".
In line 18, leave out "the said scheme" and insert "it".
In line 21, leave out from "effect" to "and" in line 22.—[Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett.]

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I beg to move, in page 20, line 25, at the end to insert:
(f) specifying the place at which the equipment by means of which the said scheme is to be put into effect is to be installed, if it is to be installed on land, or, if it is to be installed in a ship or vehicle, the place at which the ship or vehicle is to be moored or stationed.
This Amendment moves on to rather a different point, because we are now concerned with the rules and controls in relation to equipment required by the control authority, as opposed to equipment in the sea-going ships. When we were discussing the previous Amendment the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King) said that it was still not clear which was which. I can only tell him that I am assured by the lawyers that there is no room for doubt—and who am I to challenge their views on this matter. It is unfortunate that we have not yet reached the stage where we can use in the Bill those technical terms which we use when we are discussing these matters. It is partly for that reason that this provision is difficult to follow.
The substantial part of the Amendment arises from our conclusion, on reflection after the Committee stage, that there might be circumstances in which it would be more convenient or economical to instal the control equipment afloat, in a pilot vessel moored at the entrance to the harbour, in a light vessel, or in a vessel which can be moored in certain places at certain times. We thought that we ought to make provision to cover these eventualities, and that is the reason for the Amendment.

Commander Pursey: The Parliamentary Secretary referred to fitting installations ashore or at the end of a pier or on a pilot vessel. Will he tell us what equipment he has in mind? Surely that question does not arise in respect of

radio telephony. Has the hon. and gallant Gentleman radar in mind? Is the idea that radar will be made compulsory for all ports? I do not suggest that a port authority could—I pose this question to get the matter clear on the record—but if a port authority put up a reasonable argument that it could do what was required by the use of radio telephony only, because of the distance or the width of the channel, would that be accepted?
The Parliamentary Secretary knows as I do that radar has many advantages, but in close waters and narrow channels it can be deceptive. Pilots in difficult navigable channels would ignore radar. So what is the position, if there is a compulsory order for radar to be used ashore and in ships, and the pilots would not use it?

Dr. King: As I said earlier, this Amendment was made because we were troubled about the ambiguity over the two kinds of equipment specified; the land equipment, about which we thought the Minister has the right to make exact specifications, and the much more limited specified equipment which we said ought to be on the ships. I suggested earlier that this Amendment removes that ambiguity. But it would be better if we took all the subsections relating to the scheme and grouped them together, away from those relating to ships, otherwise there may be some ambiguity about the kind of ship to which reference is made.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: With the permission of the House I will reply. I would say to the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King) that if one has the advantage, as I have, of getting the Clause in its modified form typed out complete—I gave copies to hon. Members opposite—it appears fairly clear. I cannot reiterate too often to the hon. and gallant Member for Kingston upon Hull (Commander Pursey) that no one is compelled to have any equipment. It is for them to take the initiative and ask to operate a scheme, as has been done already by some of our great progressive ports.
As the hon. and gallant Gentleman says radar in certain circumstances can be unsatisfactory, particularly where there is high ground. That is one reason why it is necessary, if the Government are to back a scheme, to have certain powers


of control over the equipment used. It is correct for my right hon. Friend to take powers to specify the nature of equipment. So much depends on the nature of equipment. I ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman—perhaps he has done so already—to visit Gravesend or Sheerness—he could easily arrange this with the responsible authority—and go to one of the control stations so as to see what is going on. He would find that there is a wonderful radar picture extending right up the river, and big ships and small can be picked out with fascinating accuracy.
The hon. Member for Itchen must not assume that these stations are manned entirely by landsmen. They become landsmen, but they have plenty of nautical experience. That is why power is taken under this statutory scheme under the order to specify the training qualifications of the people operating them. Naturally, the shore station will have to have radio telephonic equipment of such frequency as to communicate with ships. Otherwise the whole scheme would fail from the beginning.

Amendment agreed to.

9.30 p.m.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I beg to move, in page 20, line 31, after "punishment", insert "(i)".
The next group of Amendments are all drafting Amendments and are connected with the penal provisions of the Bill. I should like to make clear that these Amendments have no bearing whatever on Amendments which we shall be discussing shortly, one from the Opposition and one in the names of my hon. Friends, on the actual sanctions to be imposed by the penal provisions. These nine Amendments are very involved, but they do not alter the substance of what is proposed in connection with the penal Clauses 18, 19 and 20.

Mr. Speaker: It is all right for all of them to be discussed together if that be the wish of the House.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. These Amendments simply allow for the sub-division of paragraph (c) on page 20 which is carried into two new paragraphs. That was the change on which the House divided a short time ago. They also

allow for the penalties to be imposed for contravention of the provisions of paragraph (b). This was a point which was overlooked in the original wording.
Amendments Nos. 71 and 72 are necessary to extend paragraph (g) on page 20 in Clause 18 so that a control of movement order can specify contravention of paragraph (b) or either or both of the new paragraphs into which paragraph (c) has now been split. The further seven Amendments are minor consequential changes which depend on the first two Amendments.

Mr. Mellish: We accept what the Parliamentary Secretary has said and hope that it will work out all right.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 20, line 33 leave out from "and" to "of" in line 35 and insert:
(ii) in the event of failures, in the case of ships, to comoly with a provision of the order having effect by virtue of paragraph (b) above or of contraventions, in the case of ships, of prohibitions imposed under a provision of the order having effect by virtue of paragraph (d) above.
In page 21, line 20, leave out "therein mentioned" and insert:
mentioned in sub-paragraph (i) thereof".
In page 21, line 21, leave out from second "of" to first "of" in line 23 and insert:
such a failure or contravention as is mentioned in sub-paragraph (ii) thereof".
In page, 21, line 28, after "a", insert "failure or".—[Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett.]

Dr. King: I beg to move, in page 21, line 30, to leave out "six" and to insert three".
The effect of the Amendment would be to reduce from six months to three months the time for which a captain may be sent to gaol for disobeying a control of movement order. We endeavoured to remove it altogether in Committee. We found that this Amendment was the only way in which we could successfully raise the matter on Report, ant I imagine that that is why the admirable Amendment to line 28 has not been called.
My own reactions in Committee to the penal provisions of the Clause were, as I expected, he reactions of every captain


of every vessel who has considered the Bill. It remains a grave error of judgment and wisdom in the Clause to subject the captain to criminal proceedings, and I still hope that the Government will accept this modest Amendment and even give consideration to taking out the criminal provisions altogether. All we can do at the moment is to amend the provisions which would make it possible to send a master of a ship to gaol for six months.
Let me make it quite clear that no one wishes to mitigate the punishment imposed on the master of a ship for a grave offence, but that is already covered by law. I listed the provisions in Committee. If the master of a ship commits a grave offence, Acts of Parliament decide that he shall be punished. In the Clause we are adding to this professional body the danger of a new criminal offence. We think that throughout we have spoken on this matter for the profession of ships' masters, and I have a letter from the Merchant Navy and Air Line Officers Association in which they particularly protest against the penal provisions of the Clause.
Attached is a letter which they sent to the Parliamentary Secretary, from which I quote:
I am sorry that the Harbours Bill, as amended by Standing Committee F, still contains a Clause permitting imprisonment on indictment as a penalty for infringement of a control order. We have, in fact, received quite a number of protests about this particular provision creating a new offence for which masters can be imprisoned. In our view this will establish a precedent which may well be quoted if and when we have to protest against harsh treatment in foreign ports".
This is a most important argument. In the earlier debate, when we were talking about equipment, my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) referred to "justice" in Ghana. If we impose imprisonment for six months on ships' masters in our own ports, there is no knowing what may happen to British captains who break some law of some other country in some other ports. This will be used by the foreign Power as justification for their action. I have a protest from the Merchantile Marine Service Association. A letter from its General Secretary ends:
In conclusion. I am directed to repeat the expression of extreme concern already

voiced on our behalf at the Ministry's failure to inform us in advance of the contents of a Bill of such importance to our members".
He asks that in future they be consulted.
I am certain that if the professional organisations of the ships' masters of this country had been consulted early in the working out of the Bill the provisions about which we complain here would not have remained in it. We should not make captains vulnerable, and defensibly vulnerable, when they commit offences in other ports. If a captain does anything unprofessional, whether in obedience to a control of movement order or against it is beside the point. He will be punished for unprofessional conduct.
Throughout our debates in Committee upstairs the Parliamentary Secretary was with us on this matter, although he is too stubborn to say so. He said in Committee that he understood our fears. He said:
Prosecution for disobeying an order would fail if the master could show that he had good reason for thinking that compliance with the order would imperil his ship.
Earlier, the Parliamentary Secretary had said:
…I am equally certain that neither the master nor the pilot would take the slightest notice of them"—
control orders—
if they thought the ship would be endangered in the process.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman then said:
A master cannot be held responsible for anything that happens to his ship unless it is as a result of his negligence and default".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee F, 4th February, 1964, c. 437–42.]
If the captain is negligent and commits a fault he will be punished in the ordinary course of events. If the offence is grave enough to warrant criminal proceedings, that would happen whether or not we have this Clause.
I urge the Parliamentary Secretary to realise that the profession for which I am pleading feels this deeply. The members of that profession object, because of the commission of an act which might be committed by a master carrying out the best traditions of his profession and protecting his ship by disobeying a control of movement order, to being placed in jeopardy on indictment for a criminal offence. The Minister should at least


accept the Amendment to limit the punishment to three months' imprisonment, although between now and the time when the Bill reaches another place he should delete this punishment altogether.

Commander Pursey: I support the Amendment and I will bring forward further evidence to support the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King). The Merchant Navy and Airline Officers Association has also been in touch with me and has pointed out that it has been disappointed that our efforts to delete the provision of imprisonment as a penalty for infringement of an order did not succeed in Committee. The Association states in a letter:
We are particularly perturbed about the many red herrings drawn across the trail when the question of the responsibility of Masters was being discussed in connection with the proposed imprisonment penalty…
The Association further argues that to relate infringement of a control order to the question of masters being drunk, reluctance to use new equipment and hazarding ships had given the Association an entirely new picture of what was apparently being attempted by the Bill. I believe that these penalties should be included in merchant shipping legislation and not in a Measure of this sort and in this way.
9.45 p.m.
The Association also says this:
It now seems to us that the Minister wants to take powers so as to deal with professional offences and it surprises us that this should be attempted when we have a tripartite working party already considering proposals for the revision of the Merchant Shipping Act generally under the auspices of the Ministry of Transport.
In another letter the Association says this:
On the subject of imprisonment, apart from the possible international repercussions, the Harbours Bill, if enacted in its present form, would create the anomalous position whereby, in areas where a control scheme was in operation, non-compliance with a direction of the harbour master could result in imprisonment, whereas, in areas with no scheme, the maximum penalty was probably a fine of £5.
This makes the position farcical. On the one hand, a fine of £5 is imposed. On the other, for the same offence, admittedly under different conditions, but not conditions for which the master

is responsible, he may be sent to prison for six months.
This argument ties up with previous existing regulations. I do not wish to weary the House at this time of night with undue historical details. After all, harbour, dock and pier legislation is still based on the Harbours, Docks and Piers Clauses Act, 1847, which from time to tine we had to call in aid in Committee. Section 53 of that Act provides the penalty to which a master of a ship may be subject if he fails to comply with the directions of a harbour master, which is exactly what the position will be when the Bill is enacted. This has a long history. The provision is in the fallowing terms:
The master of every vessel within the harbour or dock…shall regulate such vessel according to the directions of the harbour master…and any master of a vessel who, after notice of any such direction by the harbour master served upon him, shall not forthwith regulate such vessel according to such direction shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding twenty pounds.
This or a corresponding provision is to be found in the Private Acts of practically all United Kingdom harbour authorities. In the Port of London Act, 1962, the Authority took the opportunity to increase the various penalties for breach of regulations to bring them more into line with the present-day value of money. Under the provisions of this Act, the maximum penalty on ships' masters not complying with the direction of the dock master in London—the same offence again—was increased from £20 to £50. At other ports it would seem that the maximum penalty is generally still of the order of £20 only. In the byelaws made by many port authorities the maximum fine for the infringement of any regulation is often only £5.
The powers of a harbour master are already quire wide, and non-compliance with a prohibition or direction given under a control of movement order under the Bill might not be any more serious a matter than the non-compliance with a direction given by a harbour master under his existing powers. Section 52 of the Harbours, Docks and Piers Clauses Act, 1847, which is still in force, provides that—
The harbour master may give directions for all or any of the following purposes…


I will not read all the purposes in detail. The first one is for regulating the time at which vessels shall enter—that is one of the objects of this Bill. Another is for regulating the position in which any vessel shall take in or discharge its cargo. A third is for regulating the manner in which any vessel entering a harbour shall be dismantled—that is not in the Bill. Others are for removing unserviceable vessels and for regulating the quantity of ballast.
I submit that to introduce a penalty of six months' imprisonment is out of all relation to penalties imposed for similar offences over a long period of years, yet—and the Parliamentary Secretary called this in aid in another connection—we are supposed to be the leading maritime nation. Does the Minister no longer trust the masters of ships? These men are among the most important individuals we have today. They are responsible for big carriers of bulk cargo, large tankers, and the like, and a mistake on their part could wreck a ship and cost thousands, if not millions, of pounds.
These officers ought not to labour under the possibility of six months' imprisonment being imposed by a bench of magistrates and others who—and I do not criticise them—may have no technical knowledge. It is not sufficient for the Parliamentary Secretary to say that as a defence the master of a ship can plead that he refused to obey a certain order because he thought that to obey might be to endanger his ship. There is no new offence created by this Measure that justifies any imprisonment of a master—certainly not six months' imprisonment—and we have tabled this Amendment in order to try to get the Minister and the Government to look at this subject again. If this provision were to go on the Statute Book it would be a standing disgrace to the Tory Government and an infliction on the masters in the Merchant Service that they would never forget.

Mr. David James: Replying to a debate on a similar Amendment in the Committee, my hon. and gallant Friend the Parliamentary Secretary said:
I can say at once that we certainly do not regard this Amendment as one that would wreck the Clause, and if it is the wish of

the Committee that the lesser penalty shall be accepted, we will bow to the will of the Cornmittee."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee F, 4th February, 1964; c. 476.]
Most unfortunately, the Committee expressed no such will, so that he did not have to bow to an expression of opinion.
I do not want to repeat the arguments that have already been eloquently, and somewhat lengthily, put, but I would stress, as the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King) has said, that this situation could arise out of a genuine professional difference of opinion as to where the safety of a ship lay. I hope that, in this context, my hon. and gallant Friend will bow to the will of the House which, I think, has been very freely and fairly expressed.

Mr. John Wells: I support what has been said on both sides in asking my hon. and gallant Friend to think about this again. As a Member with a substantial prison in my constituency, I put it to him: Does he really know what prisons are all about, if he is thinking of suggesting six months' imprisonment for a master of a great merchant ship? It is really too ridiculous, having regard to the professional experience of these men.
I go the whole way with the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King) in his remark about the professional status of ship masters. My only difference of opinion is with the hon. and gallant Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, East (Commander Pursey) when he speaks of £5 as a possible penalty. In my view, we should have a substantial penalty in the Clause, but I think we should take out all mention of imprisonment. It is completely unsuited to this matter.

Mr. Jeger: I add my plea to the Minister to accept the Amendment. Considering the scale of punishments, we see at once that the principal punishment which a master would suffer would be the loss of his career after he came out of prison. That would be far more serious to him than whether he spent three months or six months actually in prison. His career would be gone. He would have a black mark against him and never again be able to pursue his calling.
If the Minister is looking for retribution for any damage caused by an


accident, then, of course, six months' imprisonment is far too light and the fine is far too small. If he is looking at the matter from the point of view of punishment, conviction and even the very minimum term in prison is the real punishment. It will damage the man's career in later life.
I remind the Parliamentary Secretary of something he said in Committee, though not directly on the question of punishment:
Having been brought up in a far more rigidly disciplined Service than is proposed under this scheme, I often received advice from my superiors, in fact, almost continually—but it did not necessarily prevent one doing what one pleased."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee F, 17th December, 1963; c. 43.]
It may well happen that the master of a ship receives advice which conflicts with his owe judgment and thereafter an accident occurs.
I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to consider whether, but for the grace of God, he might not have suffered from the provisions which he is now recommending to the House.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: My hon. Friends the Members for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. David James) and for Maidstone (Mr. J. Wells) have not, I think, read Clause 20, which is related to this subject Clause 20 makes perfectly clear that a good defence to a charge under this Part of the Bill is that the master of the ship
had reasonable ground for supposing that compliance with the direction or, as the case may be, the prohibition would be likely to imperil the ship or that in the circumstances compliance with the direction or…the prohibition was impracticable".
I do not think that we need to concern ourselves very much with the person who innocently offends against one of these control of movement orders. It is extremely unlikely that he would be prosecuted at all, and, if he were, he could produce that defence and be acquitted. This is the answer to the hon. and gallant Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, East (Commander Pursey) who told us over and again that masters were all very responsible and reputable people. This being so, it is extremely unlikely that they will come up against this penalty.
The penalty is a maximum penalty on trial on indictment. If I may say

so, it is most misleading of the hon. and gallant Gentleman to say that in many cases the offence would only be much the slime as the case of a man who incurred a fine of £20 for disobeying a harbourmaster. So it might be, but in that case I should have sufficient confidence in our courts to believe that a comparable penalty would be imposed, not the maximum.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman asked why masters of ships should have the shadow of imprisonment hanging over their heads. They have already. So have Members of Parliament. They, too, have the shadow of two years' imprisonment hanging over them if they, drive a vehicle dangerously, and this is a direct parallel to what we are talking, about.

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on Government Business may entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Selwyn Lloyd.]

Question vain proposed, That "six" stand part of the Bill.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: The hon. Member for Goole (Mr. Jeger) rightly pointed out that the heavy penalty in the case of a master of a ship would mean the loss of his career. Certainly it would mean the interruption of his career. But that is equally true about the man who becomes involved in one of the more serious traffic offences. Again the safety of life is at stake, and these sanctions are held in reserve to ensure that the safety regulations embodied in this Clause are observed.
The hon. Member for Southampton Itchen (Dr. King), asked why we were not prepared to reduce the term of imprisonment to throe months. A period of six months imprisonment is, in all normal cases, the shortest maximum term of imprisonment which is included in public legislation for offences regarded as sufficiently serious to merit trial by indictment instead of summary proceedings. I must make it clear—I am sure that hon. Members know this already—that the Home Office is the co-ordinating Government Department on such matters. We have been advised, not only


that six months is consistent with precedent, but that there are no circumstances of a sufficiently exceptional nature to warrant departure in this case.
I wish to refer to the point made by the hon. Member for Itchen about consultation. It is true that for many years there has been a custom of consulting the officers' associations and the seamen's union, and, indeed, the shipowners, on Amendments of the Merchant Shipping Act, including even its penal provisions. There is a long tradition of doing that. But it is not normal practice to consult outside organisations about prospective penalties in the normal cases of the administration of criminal justice penal provisions. This is not the normal custom of any Government. In a great many cases it would be inappropriate to do this. The question of when they should consult prospective offenders about what the penalties shall be is something which the Government must reserve the right to decide themselves.
I now turn to the real merits of the case. I stress that we are dealing with the maximum penalty which may be exacted in the case of a master of a ship who deliberately entered the harbour, after coming up the channel in a fog, after his ship had been told to wait, an act which could have, and which on occasions has had, the most disastrous consequences. The nearest parallel that I can suggest to that is disobedience of the rule of the road when such disobedience has been the result of wilful default. The maximum penalty for a master for that offence is two years' imprisonment. I cannot see that a wilful disobedience of one of these control of movement orders in circumstances which can lead to such great danger is any less heinous than a wilful disregard of the rule of the road. I cannot see the difference.
I am not all that impressed about the suggestion that we must not do anything unpleasant to foreign masters who disobey our laws because in retaliation something unpleasant may be done to the masters of our ships. Logically, it could be argued that we should never prosecute foreign tourists for traffic offences in case the country in question

took it out of our tourists when they proceed abroad with their cars. I regard this as a close analogy. There is no need to let foreigners disregard these orders. I do not have the same distrust of the fairness of the great majority of foreign countries as hon. Members opposite seem to have.
We went through this in Committee upstairs and I need not labour the point again. I must, however, repeat that the suggestion by the hon. and gallant Member for Kingston upon Hull, East that this could be dealt with under the Merchant Shipping Act is not sound. I explained at length the reason for this. One reason alone is that the masters of foreign vessels could not be prosecuted under that Act, which by its very nature applies only to British vessels. We should, therefore, have a position in which there was discrimination against the masters of our ships who were punished for disobedience of these orders, whereas the masters of foreign ships would go scot free.
For all these reasons, I do not think that the maximum—and I repeat that it is a maximum—penalty of six months is unreasonable for an offence which in its most grave form could have such terribly serious consequences.

Mr. Hoy: There is no political dispute between the two sides of the House on this matter. We made our case in Committee. I am just a little surprised that the Minister has gone back on his word in Committee, because it was he who offered to reduce the sentence from six to three months. He said, on 4th February:
I can say at once that we certainly do not regard this Amendment as one that would wreck the Clause, and if it is the wish of the Committee that the lesser penalty should be accepted we will bow to the will of the Committee."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee F, 4th February, 1964; c. 476.]
The hon. and gallant Gentleman himself offered to reduce it to three months. His only reason for changing his mind is that his Department has been in contact with the co-ordinating committee of the Home Department, which regards six months as a neat little sentence which conforms with sentences for other crimes, and because of this he insists upon six months.
We cannot accept the reasons given tonight by the Parliamentary Secretary for his insistence upon six months any more than we did in Committee. I hope that when we go into the Lobby those hon. Members opposite who feel like many others of us will come in with us

in opposition to the Minister's insistence upon this penalty.

Question put, That "six" stand part of the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 171, Noes 128.

Division No. 38.]
AYES
[10.8 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Allason, James
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)


Anderson, D. C.
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Arbuthnot, Sir John
Hastings, Stephen
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Hay, John
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)


Atkins, Humphrey
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Partridge, E.


Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)
Hendry, Forbes
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)


Barlow, Sir John
Hiley, Joseph
Peel, John


Barter, John
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth


Batsford, Brian
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Quintin
Pounder, Rafton


Bidgood, John C.
Holland, Philip
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch


Bitten, John
Hollingworth, John
Prior, J. M. L.


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Hornby, R. P.
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Bishop, Sir Patrick
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Bourne-Arton, A.
Howard, John (Southampton, Test)
Rees, Hugh (Swansea, W.)


Box, Donald
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Renton, Rt. Hon. David


Braine, Bernard
Hughes-Young, Michael
Scott-Hopkins, James


Brewis, John
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Shaw, M.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt. -Col. Sir Walter
Iremonger, T. L.
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Speir, Rupert


Bryan, Paul
Jennings, J. C.
Stainton, Keith


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Stevens, Geoffrey


Carr, Rt. Hon. Robert
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Cary, Sir Robert
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Channon, H. P. G.
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Studholme, Sir Henry


Chichester-Clark, R.
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Summers, Sir Spencer


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Kershaw, Anthony
Tapsell, Peter


Cleaver, Leonard
Kimball, Marcus
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)


Cooke, Robert
Kirk, Peter
Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)


Costain, A. P.
Kitson, Timothy
Taylor, Sir William (Bradford, N.)


Coulson, Michael
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Teeling, Sir William


Critchley, Julian
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Curran, Charles
Lindsay, Sir Martin
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. Peter


Dalkeith, Earl of
Linstead, Sir Hugh
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F.
Litchfield, Capt. John
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon


Doughty, Charles
Loveys, Walter H.
Turner, Colin


Duncan, Sir James
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
McAdden, Sir Stephen
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Elliott, R. W. (Ncwc'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Mac Arthur, Ian
Vane, W. M. F.


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
McLaren, Martin
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Farey-Jones, F. W.
McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia
Vickers, Miss Joan


Farr, John
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Walder, David


Finlay, Graeme
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute &amp; N. Ayrs)
Walker, Peter


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Wall, Patrick


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
McMaster, Stanley R.
Ward, Dame Irene


Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Webster, David


Gibson-Watt, David
Maitland, Sir John
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, Central)
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Gilmour. Sir John (East Fife)
Marshall, Sir Douglas
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Glover, Sir Douglas
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Wise, A. R.


Grant-Ferris, R.
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Green, Alan
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Woodhouse, C. M.


Gresham Cooke, R.
Miscampbell, Norman
Worsley, Marcus


Grosvenor, Lord Robert
Morgan, William
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Neave, Airey



Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie
Mr. Pym and Mr. Jasper More.




NOES


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Blackburn, F.
Carmichael, Neil


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Blyton, William
Cliffe, Michael


Awbery, Stan (Bristol, Central)
Boardman, H.
Collick, Percy


Bacon, Miss Alice
Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. C.
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)


Barnett, Guy
Bowden, Rt. Hn. H.W. (Leics, S.W.)
Cronin, John


Beaney, Alan
Bradley, Tom
Dalyell, Tam


Benn, Anthony Wedgwood
Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Davies, Harold (Leek)


Benson, Sir George
Callaghan, James
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)




Dempsey, James
Kenyon, Clifford
Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)


Diamond, John
King, Dr. Horace
Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)


Dodds, Norman
Lawson, George
Ross, William


Duffy, A. E. P. (Colne Valley)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Silkin, John


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Silverman, Julian (Aston)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Skeffington, Arthur


Evans, Albert
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Fitch, Alan
McBride, N.
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Fletcher, Eric
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Small, William


Foley, Maurice
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Snow, Julian


Forman, J. C.
Manuel, Archie
Sorensen, R. W.


Galpern, Sir Myer
Mapp, Charles
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Gourlay, Harry
Mellish, R. J.
Spriggs, Leslie


Grey, Charles
Mendelson, J. J.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Millan, Bruce
Storehouse, John


Hannan, William
Milne, Edward
Stones, William


Harper, Joseph
Mitchison, G. R.
Swingler, Stephen


Hayman, F. H.
Morris, Charles (Openshaw)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)
Mulley, Frederick
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, w.)


Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Neal, Harold
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)


Hilton, A. V.
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Thornton, Ernest


Holt, Arthur
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)
Wade, Donald


Houghton, Douglas
O'Mailey, B. K.
Weitzman, David


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Oswald, Thomas
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Hoy, James H.
Owen, Will
White, Mrs. Eirene


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Pargiter, C. A.
Whitlock, William


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Parker, John
Wilkins, W. A.


Hunter, A. E.
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Popplewell, Ernest
Winterbottom, R. E.


Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Probert, Arthur
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Janner, Sir Barnett
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Jeger, George
Randall, Harry



Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Redhead, E. C.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Robertson, John (Palsley)
Mr. Ifor Davies and Mr. McCann.


Kelley, Richard
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

Amendment made: In page 21, line 36, leave out subsection (6).—[Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett.]

Clause 19.—(PROVISIONS SUPPLEMEN- TARY TO SECTION 18.)

Amendments made: In page 22, line 28, leave out "in which" and insert:
or vehicle in which or any ship or aircraft on board of which ".

In page 23, line 3, after "that", insert :
in exercise of powers conferred by paragraph (b) above".—[Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett.]

Clause 20.—(DEFENCE AVAILABLE TO PER- SONS CHARGED WITH OFFENCES UNDER CONTROL OF MOVEMENT ORDERS.)

Amendments made: In page 23, line 19, after "consisting", insert "(a)".

In line 21, leave out from second "of" to "it" in line 24 and insert :

"paragraph (c) of subsection (3) of section 18 of this Act ; or
(b) in a failure, in the case of a ship, to comply with a provision of such an order having effect by virtue of paragraph (b) of that subsection or a contravention, in the case of a ship, of a prohibition imposed under a provision of such an order having effect by virtue of paragraph (d) of that subsection.

In line 26, leave out from "direction" to "would" and insert:
provision or prohibition in question".

In line 27, after "or", insert "to prove".

In line 28, leave out from "direction" to end of line and insert:
provision or prohibition in question".[Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett.]

Further consideration of the Bill, as amended, adjourned.—[Mr. Marples.]

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — DEFENCE (TRANSFER OF FUNCTIONS) BILL

Lords Amendments considered.

Clause 1.—(TRANSFER TO, AND DIS- CHARGE BY, SECRETARY OF STATE AND DEFENCE COUNCII, OF CERTAIN STATUTORY FUNCTIONS.)

Lords Amendment: In page 1, line 10, leave out "Navy Board" and insert "Admiralty Board".

10.21 p.m.

The Minister of Defence (Mr. Peter Thorneycroft): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
It may also he convenient with this to take the remaining two Lords Amendments. Is that possible?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir William Anstruther-Gray): If it is convenient, that is possible.

Mr. Thorneycroft: These Amendments are concerned with nomenclature and specifically with the name which should be accorded to a sub-committee of the new Defence Council charged with the important responsibilities of the management of the Royal Navy. It is clear from the Bill that the office of the Admiralty as we know it today in the sense of a separate Department will disappear, as my hon. Friend the Civil Lord said on Monday. This is inevitable because the office of the Lord High Admiral, which was in commission in the Admiralty, will revert to Her Majesty the Queen and most of the main powers of the Admiralty, certainly in respect of major policy, will be conferred on the Secretary of State and the Defence Council. What will be left will be the sub-committee or subordinate Board of the Defence Council. The question with which we are concerned is what name should be accorded to it.
In the Commons the name preferred was the Navy Board. [HON. MEMBERS : "No."] It was the name in the Bill as it left the House of Commons. I am bound to say that that was the name which I preferred and, to be frank, it was the name preferred by the Board of Admiralty. But both names have an

honoured place in history. The word "Admiralty" has been current since about the 14th century in its wider sense of the affair of the sea and since the reign of Henry VIII as the Admiralty as we know it, that is, the Office of the Lord High Admiral ; as also has the Navy Board since that period, with which the names of Samuel Pepys and others have been honourably connected.
We can take a different view, but I am bound to advise the House that I do not think that the name of the Board is of such ragnitude as to justify us in sending messages backwards and forwards between the two Houses and possibly delaying the introduction of an important Measure. In those circumstances, we should agree with the Lords Amendment.

Mr. E. C. Willis: It has been an edifying spectacle that so many of the quarterdeck have been mutineering, hardly the example to set the Royal Navy. Nevertheless, on this occasion I am glad that the mutineers have won. I did not have the privilege of serving on the Standing Committee. I was away at the time trying to reduce the majority of the present Solicitor-General for Scotland—as we did. I found it rather difficult to understand why this fight was pursued to such lengths in another place.
As the right hon. Gentleman now recognises, it is simply a question of a name. The powers are not affected, and the success of the plan for greater integration of the defence departments at the top depends not upon the name but upon the Minister, and the will which is put into fitting them doubtedly very wide associations. It arouses a great deal of sentiment. It is closely associated with our traditions and history. It is a good name, and it is difficult to see why it should be changed.
One argument which was put forward in the other place was that as we were changing the functions we should change the name. The Government Front Bench has on it many people whose present-day functions barely resemble the original functions. There is the Lord Privy Seal, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Treasury Whips. They were not originally intended as Government Whips. Reading the name "Lord Commissioner


of the Treasury", one would hardly expect that it would hide beneath it the Chief Government Whip, but it does.

Mr. Robert Cooke: No—he is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury.

Mr. Willis: The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury is the Chief Whip, but I was talking about the other Whips. They are Lords Commissioners of the Treasury.
Many cities and associations throughout the country have officials who bear names that have a long tradition, but their original functions have long since disappeared. Edinburgh has a Lord Provost, who is Admiral of the Forth, but he does not perform many functions in that connection. We preserve these names because we like them, and that is a good reason for keeping them, so long as they do not interfere with the manner in which the various functions are carried out. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has changed his mind on this matter. We accept the Lords Amendments.

Mr. Simon Wingfield Digby: In Committee, we had a little discussion on this point on an Amendment in the name of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Commander Courtney) and myself, but we did not discuss it nearly as fully as it was discussed in another place, where such distinguished people as Lord Attlee expressed a view with which I agree. I am glad that my right hon. Friend has found it possible to retain the word "Admiralty". A word like that has taken three centuries of naval history to build up, and it would be a pity to discard it if it can be avoided.
Much has been said of the history of the Navy Board, some of which is not entirely justified. Although it performed some valuable services it did not have an untarnished record, and on balance would not be quite so worthy a name as "Admiralty". In any case, in view of the events of the last few days and our difficulty in trying to sort out the naval policy of the party opposite, wonder whether either word would be appropriate if the Labour Party won the general election. But that is not for us to discuss tonight. We have to

choose between the two words. I believe that the word "Admiralty" is to be preferred. A great many people throughout the naval Service who quite understand the new idea of integrating our defence Services will feel that in accepting the Lords Amendments on this occasion Parliament has done the right thing.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: The acceptance of the Lords Amendments by the right hon. Gentleman shows a weakness in his character to which we have become accustomed. Not long ago he resigned from the Government and retreated to the third bench below the Gangway and said that we were spending too much on nuclear armaments. He made a magnificent case, which made me think that I had converted him overnight.
But what happened? As I said last night, the poacher has turned gamekeeper, or perhaps the gamekeeper has turned poacher. At any rate, the right hon. Gentleman has completely reversed his attitude and has proposed the biggest armament budget that we have ever had in peace time. It is quite in keeping with his character. If I may be pardoned for introducing a military metaphor, this is the most remarkable manoeuvre since the days of the Grand Old Duke of York—
He had ten thousand men.
He marched them up to the top of the hill And he marched them down again.
This has been called mutiny. I am inclined to approve of mutiny on principle. But mutiny in the House of Lords, in the gilded Chamber! The result was that the spokesman for the Ministry of Defence in the other place put up a fight. The right hon. Gentleman has not succumbed through sweet reasonableness at all. He has succumbed because he was defeated in another place. He took up the valuable time of the House of Lords which debated this issue for many hours, and now he has come along and hoisted the white flag of surrender. Of course, this encourages the House of Lords to do it again. This is a precedent.

Mr. Patrick Wall: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the last time there was mutiny in the


other place it resulted in my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister coming into this House?

Mr. Hughes: And that was an absolute catastrophe. The hon. Member could not have chosen a more ridiculous precedent.
It would have been different if the Minister of Defence had said, "I have been beaten in the House of Lords. There were all these distinguished admirals and ex-admirals at each other's throats for hours over this point ; I apologise." But that is not his attitude. He has come here with a story about Henry VIII. This procedure has continued since the time of Henry VIII. I know what Henry VIII would have done with a Minister who had shown such weakness. He would have done the same as he did with some of his wives. [Laughter.] Hon. Members may draw what conclusions they like from that statement. But his head would have gone. Then we come to Samuel Pepys. Think what he would have written in his diary about the weakness of this irresponsible Minister.
I feel inclined to test the feeling of the loyalty of the House by taking this Amendment to a Division, except that I would probably be accused of disloyalty to the Labour Party and might be thrown out. However, I am voicing my protest. I hope that this will not be a precedent, when a Minister, having listened to the views of a Committee of the House of Commons, refuses to take the advice of that Committee and ignominiously surrenders to the House of Lords.
I hope the House of Lords will not take too much encouragement from this incident. Indeed, I hope that we shall soon not have this sort of dilemma ; I hope that we shall have abolished the House of Lords altogether.

Commander Anthony Courtney: I wish to associate myself with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Wingfield Digby) in this matter.
There is one constitutional point which should perhaps be drawn to the attention of the House. The word "Admiralty", although its origins are lost in the mists of antiquity, has been interpreted as the instrument or expression of the powers of the ninth great officer of State, appointed after the end of the feudal

system, The Lord Admiral has become the Lord high Admiral, after a few permutations, having had the same status as the Lord Chancellor, the Lord Privy Seal and the Lord Treasurer all of whom have suffered "sea changes"—if I may use that term—and the office of Lord Admiral, or Lord High Admiral, has been reassumed by Her Majesty.
In these circumstances, there is a strong constitutional argument for retaining the word "Admiralty" somewhere in the higher échelons of the new defence structure. My right hon. Friend is acting with great wisdom in retaining the words "Admiralty Board". The operational function of the Lord High Admiral will pass to my right hon. Friend who is Chairman of the Admiralty Board, while in his absence the Ministry of Defence (Navy) takes the chair. There, therefore, can be no question of conflict with the general proposition in integration which I think the majority in this House supports.
There are three very small practical points I should mention. I understand that about 25 Admiralty establishments throughout the world will retain their title, largely as a result of pressure from the civilian elements serving in those establishments. It is interesting that the pressure should come from civilians Admiralty establishments must subordinate themselves to someone, now within the Ministry of Defence. It is a detail but it would seem wrong if 25 or 30 Admiralty establishments throughout the world retained the word "Admiralty" while this word was not included in the higher defence organisation
There is the necessity, as laid down in the White Paper on Central Organisation for Defence, for the retention of some focus for each individual Service while we retain independent Services. A sentence which catches my eye says that all experience shows that the fighting spirit of the individual man in battle derives largely from his loyalty to his ship or regiment.
In the Army the new large regiments give that focus of loyalty, but here also there is a case for retention of something higher than the ship on which to focus loyalties of the individual officers and men in Her Majesty's Navy. The modern commission of 18 months coupled with a nine years' engagement for a sailor


means that a man may serve in six, probably ten or a dozen, ships or establishments during his service, which is an unacceptable dilution of his loyalty focus to which I have alluded. It is right that the word "Admiralty" should be retained as a higher focus which also retains the spirit of old association between Her Majesty as Lord High Admiral and the officers and men of the Fleet.
There is a point of confusion between the American and Commonwealth navies. Had we retained the expression "Navy Board" we would have been indistinguishable from the Australian Navy Board, the New Zealand Navy Board and the Canadian Navy Board, apart from the Navy Department of the United States. Why must we slavishly copy our American allies in so many things, even to the exclusion of this wonderful word "Admiralty"? I am glad that my right hon. Friend has seen his way to meet this objection.
From a reply to a Question today, I understand that the word "Admiralty" used in naval signals will be replaced towards the end of this year by "Ministry of Defence, United Kingdom". If that is not the operation of Parkinson's Law in signals, I do not know what is. It means using five words instead of one. Would it not be possible for Her Majesty's ships all over the world to continue, as from time immemorial, to address "Admiralty, London"? If they introduce their United Nations policy, the Labour Party will doubtless require a ship name for the establishment in New York for the conduct of operations to which they will commit Her Majesty's Navy. I can only suggest "H.M.S. Pinafore".
I greatly welcome my right hon. Friend's decision and I am delighted with it. I wish the integration every success.

Mr. George Wigg: The question which I ask myself is, "What sort of men are the Government composed of ; what sort of man is the First Lord of the Admiralty?" Speaking on behalf of the Government in another place, he said :
My right hon. Friend and his colleagues have, in fact, reconsidered this matter most carefully, most fully, and, I would claim, most

responsibly. It is only in the light of that careful consideration that, for the reasons which I have sought to advance today, and which I advanced at our Committee stage…

The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. John Hay): On a point of order. The hon. Member is quoting from speeches in another place in the current Session.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The rule is that Ministerial statements may be freely quoted but that other statements may not be quoted.

Mr. Wigg: I thought that some hon. Members opposite would fall for that, but I did not think that a Minister would. But apparently when one goes fishing among the other side of the House it is not necessary even to bait the hook. The Civil Lord is about as competent as the rest of his defence colleagues.
I read again what the First Lord said on behalf of the Government on 25th February:
My right hon. Friend and his colleagues have, in fact, reconsidered this matter most carefully, most fully, and. I would claim, most responsibly. It is only in the light of that careful reconsideration that, for the reasons which I have sought to advance today, and which I advanced at our Committee stage, I must once more ask your Lordships to reject this Amendment, should my noble Friends wish to press it"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords. 25th February, 1964 ; Vol. 255, c. 1064.]
I take it that there were several Cabinet meetings at which the Prime Minister was present—this pusillanimous but so-called dynamic character. He was sitting in judgment on it, and this is the Government's considered view. The First Lord has not resigned. He is still a member of the Government. Yet he told another place:
It is for that reason that we believe it would be illogical and inconsistent and indeed actively misleading to retain the old and, indeed, very revered title."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 25th February 1964: Vol. 255, c. 1061.]
But now the Government swallow the lot.

Mr. James Callaghan: My hon. Friend is not surprised, is he?

Mr. Wigg: Of course I am not surprised. I was certain when I came here


that the right hon. Gentleman would not have the guts to fight, for the same reason that he surrendered to the "blue water school" all the way through the Defence Estimates. This is why the bill will be so high. This is why the other two Services have to take a back seat. The right hon. Gentleman can no longer stand up for them.
It would not matter if the views were carefully considered views. It would not matter if there were an ounce of gumption. But look at the reasons given for the decision tonight. Despite the protestations and denials, hon. Members cannot miss the opportunity to ascribe to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition words which he has never used. Any misrepresentation from them is fair game. Hon. Gentlemen opposite laugh. I have been in the wars for the last two days, and I propose to be in them again. Throughout those two days I offered time and again to sit down to allow hon. Members opposite to intervene. Frequently, I invited the Minister to correct me if he could. There was not one taker on a single occasion. When I deal with strength in Cyprus, the Phantom 2 or anything else, there was not a taker. Not one hon. Member opposite would stand up to answer me.
10.45 p.m.
That is what the argument is all about. This is not an argument about the label on the jam pot. If it is, could the House of Commons be more frivolous? In the 19 years I have been in the House I have never failed to give way immediately—

Mr. William Yates: rose—

Mr. Wigg: —and I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, although I am entitled to make my case and then, if I give way, I can choose the moment.

Mr. Yates: rose—

Mr. Wigg: The hon. Gentleman will have his chance. I will not run away.

Mr. Geoffrey Hirst: Before the hon. Gentleman permits my hon. Friend to intervene, does he recall his remark about the needle getting stuck on the gramophone record?

Mr. Wigg: As long as hon. Members opposite do me the courtesy of getting

to their feet when interrupting I will not object—as long as they do not mutter ; I cannot stand it when they mutter.
I am poisting out that on that occasion in another place it was a serious enough time for them to revolt. If that revolt was about nothing, as we are now being asked to believe, and if this is to be used as an occasion for attacking my right hon. Friend in his absence, despite the denials, then this is frivolity gone mad. But it is not quite like that. It is more serious. The noble Lord who moved the Amendment in another place and his associates there and here have got the Government by the tail. Be it about aircraft carriers, orders for aircraft or any thing else, they call the tune and the Government dance to it.
Here is fire clearest proof of that, for what other explanation is there? The First Lord comes from a very long and distinguished line. He bears an honoured and great name in the Navy. He gives his advice in the other place in fairly categorical terms. He speaks with the full responsibility of the Government—and he asked noble Lords not to press it to a Division ; but they did. They ignored everything that had been said and now, tonight, the Government swallow it What sort of men are these? Are they men at all? They can say one thing on the 25th and a few days later swallow their words without any explanation. The truth is that the Minister has given up the ghost.
The only reason I speak tonight is to point out fiat this is just one more example of why the defence bill mounts and the defence results get less and less. There is no principle. There is no policy. There is nothing here that can be coherently explained. It consists of a series of decisions and the Government benches only occasionally, through the kindness of the hon. and gallant Member for Chelsea (Captain Litchfield)—whom I regard as their leader ; he is the only sensible one among the lot—hear some sense from their supporters. One has only to read his speech last night to know that he was talking sense. He speaks sense every time. It makes sense, but whether what he is advocating is good for the country and whether it would merely create a greater defence bill is a matter for argument. All I have ever asked is


that the facts should be hammered out. I am not asserting my view against that of the hon. and gallant Member for Chelsea. I have a view and I am entitled to put it to hon. Members. It is my duty to do that. The hon. and gallant Gentleman holds the opposite view to mine, but I ask him, as an honest and straightforward man : supposing, by some mischance, I am right and he is wrong? The consequences here are of the most far-reaching character. I have said all through our debates that the Government may be right, but the facts should be given to the House of Commons in a form in which hon. Members can examine them. No hon. Member can say that the House of Commons has been reasonably treated in the way that last week's announcements were made about the purchase of aircraft—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. It would be as well to bear in mind that what we are debating is whether or not to agree to leave out "Navy Board" and to insert "Admiralty Board."

Mr. Wigg: I am much obliged, Mr. Deputy-Speaker—I always defer to the Chair—but that has a very important connotation. If the expression is to be "Navy Board", then the most rabid "blue water" man on the other side of the Chamber will have to think that in terms of the Navy the Admiralty is something wider and more embracing. As it is, I believe that the take-over bid by the Navy has already happened and that the other two Services have now become subordinate to it—[HON. MEMBERS : "Rubbish."] Hon. Members opposite say "Rubbish," but they do not get up and say it. Where have they been during our debates? Yesterday and the day before there were not ten of them present at any time during those debates—[Interruption.] I repeat—

Mr. John Wells: How many hon. Members were present on that side of the House?

Mr. Wigg: The hon. Member was certainly not present—

Mr. Wells: rose—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I hope that the House will not stray into irrelevancy.

Mr. Wigg: If the hon. Member had been present I would have answered his question, but why should I supply him with information that he could have got by being present? Had he cared to inform himself he would have been present, but he was not—

Mr. Wells: rose—

Hon. Members: Give way.

Mr. Wigg: The point I am making is that the term "Navy Board" is a narrow one, and that is why those in another place have objected to it. For them, it is far too narrow, and the hon. and gallant Member for Harrow, East (Commander Courtney) has made the case that was made there ; that the loyalty of the soldier is to his regiment and the loyalty of the sailor is to his ship, and that as in the course of his service the sailor changes his ship many times there should be greater loyalty.
I do the hon. and gallant Member the courtesy of trying to understand that argument, I recognise its force, but what I think is suspect is that this greater and all-embracing loyalty is being applied to the other Services, and things are so working out that one Service has the bit between its teeth. Our debate on the Defence White Paper, and the debate on Monday—and yesterday it was quite clear that the Secretary of State for Air was not fighting very hard on behalf of his Service—have given definite proof of that fact.
It is of paramount importance that the thing should be argued out, and I still maintain that the best way to argue it out in a democratic, deliberative assembly is to have a series of committees being given the greatest possible amount of information. That is all I have pleaded for in the last few years, and I have kept at it. I believe that I am right, and I believe that I strengthen the hand of the Minister.
When the First Lord expressed doubts about the logicality of this step and about its consistency and wisdom and gave the considered, responsible view of the Government, I believe that he was telling the truth. From the Government's point of view, there were very substantial reasons why this concession should not have been accepted in another place.
The Government have tonight swallowed all they have said before, although there were the most substantial reasons for it. In other words, if there were those substantial and responsible reasons, there were risks involved in giving way to their hon. Friends. Yet tonight, for reasons of political expediency, they come here and say, "All right ; all we said before is a wash-out. We now withdraw". What will be the effect of that on the "blue water school"? Will they ask for less? They will ask for more, of course. They have tasted blood. We have had the announcement about one aircraft carrier, but we have not been told the number of aircraft because the Minister is afaid to tell us.
The bidding will go up. As it goes up, and as the cost increases and the defence results diminish, the reason will not be that we have merely changed the label ; the reason will be that this Government have, once again, surrendered the defence needs of this country and subordinated them to political expediency.

Captain John Litchfield: The hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) has referred to me at considerable length. In this case, however, his intelligence service has let him down. I wish to make quite clear that, although no one would regret tie disappearance of the title "Admiralty" more than I should, in this case I thought that the Government's original proposals in the Bill were right, and it was my intention tonight, if my right hon. Friend had resisted the Amendment, to support him in the Lobby. There is, therefore, no truth whatever in the hon. Member's assertion that my right hon. Friend has surrendered to what he fondly describes as the "blue water school". I hope that he will withdraw the suggestion.

Mr. Wigg: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman says that, in this particular instance, he did not press it on the Government, I accept that, of course ; but I pay him the tribute of saying that generally on Navy matters he is the only one who has any brains on that side of the House.

Captain Litchfield: Although I am complimented by the hon. Gentleman, I must go on record as saying that I profoundly disagree with him. We are full of brains on this side of the House.
May I now briefly and a little more seriously explain my view to the House? Although I should have supported my right hon. Friend if he had decided to resist these Amendments—and he knew it—I am glad that he has decided to accept them.

Mr. Wigg: I withdraw by previous withdrawal.

Captain Litchfield: I will tell the House why We have reached the very curious situation in which opposition to the surrender of the title "Admiralty" has come not from the more senior and distinguished naval peers or, indeed, from the Board of Admiralty itself, but from a very wide range of people not directly connected with the Royal Navy. I suppose that this is a great tribute to the Navy a td to the Admiralty, though I must say that there have been times within my recollection when I have, at the receiving end, heard their Lordships, that is to say the Board of Admiralty, referred to in far less complimentary terms than have been used in these debates. I think that my right hon. Friend's derision is the right solution. It may be largely a matter of sentiment and tradition, but sentiment and tradition have Flayed an important part in our affairs in the past, and not a bad part either.
As was painted out in another place, although I must not quote it, there have been times in our history when it might have been argued as logically as today that other titles might have been changed. Far instance, after the Restoration it cot ld have been argued logically that tie title of the Monarchy might be amended in some way, and after the passing of the Parliament Bill that the title of another place might be altered to being it more closely into relation with the functions remaining. Changes of that kind, however, were resisted 300 years ago and 50 years ago, and that has proved to be a happy decision, even if it was not strictly logical. Therefore, although in accepting these Amendments from another place we are, perhaps, being a little illogical, I am glad that my right hon. Friend has decided to take this step and I hope that the House will support him.
I rather thought some time ago that my right hon. Friend would be faced


with a singularly formidable operation in trying to sink the Admiralty without trace. It was a bigger task, I suspected, than any of my right hon. Friends anticipated. Once again, the Royal Navy—and I hope that this will gratify the hon. Member for Dudley, knowing his admiration for the Royal Navy—has shown that if it is to be sunk, it will certainly go down with its flag flying.

11.0 p.m.

Mr. James Callaghan: I observe that there are a number of mixed reasons for supporting the Amendment that the Government propose to accept. I can understand the supine and benign appearance of the Leader of the House when he has a follower who says, "It does not much matter what you propose. I will still be there in the Lobby behind you."
When the hon. and gallant Member for Chelsea (Captain Litchfield) referred to the Restoration, I wondered whether he had on the tip of his tongue those lines about the Vicar of Bray
That whatsoever King shall reign,
I will be the Vicar of Bray, Sir!
I cannot understand how the hon. and gallant Member can say that he would have supported the Government no matter what they proposed on this occasion.
I have a different reason for supporting the Amendment. I am, I suppose, one of the few former Lords Commissioners who are in the House, but I also am, and am proud to be, the third generation to have served in the Royal Navy. My father and grandfather before me had much more distinguished records than I did. The reason why we prefer the name "Admiralty" to "Navy Board" is that nobody who was ever concerned about or associated with the Navy ever wants to be mixed up with the Admiralty. To have called it the Navy Board would have meant that the Navy had something to do with it. As somebody who served on the lower deck myself, and knowing what passed in naval households, the thought of having anything at all good ever coming from the Admiralty would have been anathema.
Therefore, I support the Government in this proposal, because I want to make

it clear that this so-called Board, even though I once served on it for a short time, has nothing whatever to do with the Navy. It victuals them, it supplies their provisions and it provides them with rum and, on the whole, it gets in the way of officers and men trying to exercise their function in an independent manner but without much success as long as that wireless aerial was over the Board of Admiralty.
The Defence Estimates have been printed at great cost—11s. 6d. net from the Stationery Office. I have been reading the Votes, and I called Mr. Deputy-Speaker's attention to this yesterday. There appears on page 24, Vote 3, headed "Navy Department Headquarters".
Estimate of the amount required in the year ending 31st March 1965 for the salaries, wages and expenses of the Navy Department Headquarters.
There is no such thing now. Appendix IV refers to the organisation and staff of the "Navy Department Headquarters" and the senior staff and civilian staff of the "Navy Department Headquarters".
This is a lesson to the Government not to take too much for granted too soon. They had not got the Bill. I protested about this when the Admiralty Votes were introduced. The Civil Lord spoke rather huffily. He thought the Committee wanted him to get on with his speech. We did ; but we also wanted to know that the Votes had been properly printed.
It would be courteous for the Minister of Defence or the Civil Lord to tell us what it is now proposed to do about these Votes. They are, clearly, not presented in proper form. There is no such body as the Navy Board once we have accepted these Amendments. Does the Minister intend to reprint the Estimates? Will the Votes have proper amendment slips put in so that we can have "Admiralty" clearly stated as the body for which we are voting money?
Broadly speaking, for the reasons which I have given, I support the Amendments. I do not much mind one way or the other, but I think that to keep the Navy clean of any association with the Admiralty is well worth an Amendment of this sort.

Dr. Alan Thompson: Representing an Admiralty constituency, I do not think I can agree with some of the things that have been said. There is something to be said for the Navy in this matter. As a representative of an Admiralty constituency, I am glad that the Opposition here and in another place have concerned themselves with the traditions of the Navy in a way the Government have not.
While admitting that the functions of the Admiralty will change under the new defence proposals, it seems to me no reason why we should cut ourselves off from current opinion, affection and regard for old titles and old styles of naming our institutions. Lord Attlee put it rather well in another place, saying that he believed in preserving things of great tradition and not going for a kind of iconoclasm, which is a feature of the present Government.
In fact, on this matter the Government took the view that if they changed a function they had to change a name. The Opposition agree with the change of function. We accept that in a changing world the Navy of 1964 is a different kind from that of Nelson. We accept that new kinds of weapons and administration are required. But I have always thought that the Opposition have taken a very sensible view on this, that in a changing world there are still old things that we admire and traditions, objectives and views that we can continue to hold. Lord Atlee and other spokesmen have confirmed me in this view.
The Government originally took the view that if they had to abolish the Army Council and the Air Council, they would have to make everybody equally miserable by abolishing something to do with the Navy so that the Army and Royal Air Force would not feel aggrieved. This seemed to me a very frivolous reason. There are special historical reasons dating back to 1628 for calling the Admiralty "the Admiralty". It is true that its functions are changing, but I do not see why we should not preserve the particularly British features of our Navy. Every country in the world has a Navy, but only Britain has an Admiralty. Britain is a great maritime nation, one of the originally great maritime nations, with its own historical traditions.
While we must move with the times in technology, strategy and tactics, there

are things which we hold should be maintained. I repeat my reason for speaking in this debate, representing as I do a dockyard constituency—that there is a certain public affection for—indeed, at the moment, also a growth of public interest—in Admiralty affairs. In my constituency the closest relations exist between the civic authorities, myself and the people who run the great Admiralty installations. Everyone there speaks of the "Admiralty". We can accept change of function and the reasons for it, but let us have enough regard for our traditions and our affection for all that has gone before not to insist on changing the names of everything.
The name "Admiralty" is still appended to a great many things, and if the word is to be retained as an adjective to describe such things as establishments, I do not see why it should not be retained as the noun to describe this highest organisation of the Royal Navy. Defence must always depend on changes of ideas, technology and strategy, but I do not see why these changes should also involve changes in titles. The Governments original view was that the Navy must be brought into line on this with the Army and the Air Force nominally in order to ring it into line practically. Lurking in the Government's mind was the thought that there were obsolete ideas at large in the Admiralty and that unless the name were changed the Admiralty would be heft behind while the Army and the Air Force moved rapidly ahead.
I cannot accept that view. I agree that it might be said that in Nelson's day, and earlier, the Navy had an entrenched, unique view which put it apart from others, but the tradition of inter-Service co-operation is as highly upheld by the Navy as it is by the other two Services. It may be true that in the Dardenelles campaign the Navy took a view of its own that set it aside from inter-Service co-operation and did not pull its weight—or, if it did pull its weight, pulled it in a different direction from that of the Army. But that is not true of a generation which has seen, in recent months, the operations off Borneo and East Africa.

Sir Douglas Glover: My recollection of the Dardenelles campaign is that my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill)


wanted a combined operation but could not get the co-operation of the Army—I regret, as a soldier, to have to say that—and decided, in desperation, to carry it out on his own with the Navy.

Dr. Thompson: I was not there and perhaps the hon. Gentleman speaks from first-hand experience. My recollection of the history of the campaign is that the Army and the Navy were at loggerheads. But that is certainly not the case at the moment. They were not at loggerheads off Borneo and East Africa. There is new thinking in the Services which has permeated the Admiralty as well.
The Government are inflicting great changes in this Bill, but there is nothing inconsistent between moving into the second half of the 20th century with our organisation of defence while at the same time paying regard to the public affection for and interest in the Admiralty.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. G. W. Reynolds: I had not intended to speak on this subject, but the Government seem to have settled with their own supporters even before the House began the discussion tonight. I rise simply because my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) has put one or two pertinent questions to which we have not had answers. We are being asked to approve an Amendment sent to us from another place which, unless the Government put down a number of Amendments, will make it difficult to deal with the Votes with which we shall deal on Monday.
It would be out of order to discuss those Votes now, but in order that we can decide what to do tonight we want to know what we can expect the Government to do to unscramble those things which have to be unscrambled. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff. South-East was perfectly right to say that we should have some explanation from the Government before we finally approve these Amendments. The Minister of Defence or the Civil Lord should tell us something about this difficulty. The Leader of the House is present and it may be his responsibility. A legitimate question has been put, and it should be answered before we finish the debate.

Mr. Thorneycroft: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Thorneycroft, requiring leave.

Mr. Wigg: I gave notice last week, Mr. Speaker, first that I objected to one man bands. [HON. MEMBERS : "Oh."] Secondly, last week the right hon. Gentleman abused the privilege of the House and did not reply to the defence debate but made an intensely political speech. For those reasons, I object to his being given leave.

Mr. Callaghan: Mr. Speaker, is it not possible to have guidance on this matter?

Mr. Speaker: No. If the hon. Member rises to a point of order, I will hear him.

Mr. Callaghan: I rise to a point of order to inquire whether direct from you. Mr. Speaker, or from the Treasury Bench, we can be told the answer to what I think is a legitimate question. The Civil Lord is here, as is the Leader of the House. Can we be told what we are expected to do in relation to Votes which are obviously now incorrect?

Mr. Speaker: So far as I am concerned, what we are discussing is the first of the Lords Amendments. The Minister of Defence has, I understand, been refused leave to speak again. That is all I have got to.

Mr. William Ross: Questions have been asked and have not been answered. Hon Members may have made up their minds, but I have not yet decided whether we should divide the House on this matter. We are entitled to some sort of information about how the Government propose to put right a mistake which they have made by taking a decision of the House for granted. This should come as no surprise to the Government, because the Minister of Defence was there when the matter was first raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) when the Civil Lord was hoping to begin his speech on Vote A of the Navy Estimates. I was hoping that we would get some explanation of the tangle. The Minister of Defence may have decided, objection having been taken to his speaking a second time, that he is debarred from making a statement,


but that does not mean that everyone else on the Treasury Bench is tongue-tied. If it comes to a point of courtesy, I do not think that I have done the right hon. Gentleman any harm, and if he wants to intervene during my speech I shall gladly give way and let him keep within the bounds of order by speaking on his feet.
The Leader of the House surely appreciates that the Government have some responsibility to the House. It is a serious matter to present Estimates in such a form as to make them quite wrong and misleading. It is still further wrong when the basis of that error is the taking for granted of a decision of the House—and, indeed, the decision of another place. We now have terms that just are not right. I should like to know what will he done about it.

Mr. Archie Manuel: What a muddle!

Mr. Ross: It is a muddle. I am not entirely convinced that the House should put itself into this muddle. We get into it only if we agree with their Lordships in these Amendments. We keep things right if we support the original intention of the Government. When the Government had these Estimates printed there is no doubt that this is what they intended. The difficulty the Government have got themselves into arises as a result of their change of mind. I am sure that there were quite valid reasons why they suggested the change of name in the first place. But it could not have been entirely unexpected that there would be a traditional uproar about the change.
I can remember when we discussed the Naval Discipline Act. There was a prelude to the Act, consisting of a few words which were quite out of character with present-day circumstances. But Samuel Pepys had put them there in the first place, they were familiar to the Navy, and eventually they were allowed to stay. The Government must have realised that that kind of reaction would be only natural in this case, but they decided to make the change and also had the Estimates printed—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Worcester, South (Sir P. Agnew) wishes to interrupt me I shall gladly give way [Interruption.] I

do not know whether hon. Members opposite were pleased to hear the hon. Member for Bristol West (Mr. Robert Cooke) speak for more than an hour the other night on Post Office matters. They should not talk about hon. Members boring the House.
The point is a substantial one. I hope that somebody on the Government Front Bench will tell us what will happen about the Estimates if we accept the Lords Amendments. The Government got into the muddle, and it is right they should explain. The Civil Lord is here, and so is the Leader of the House. We might even have an explanation from the Patronage Secretary. He may have visited Glasgow last weekend to obtain the advice of that city about the change of names. Perhaps the Minister of Housing an I Local Government could explain, or the new Education Overlord. We get used to Government incompetence, but silence following incompetence is something new. We usually get some sort of justification or explanation.
Why should no explanation be forthcoming now? Does all the wisdom reside in the Minister of Defence? Can no one else read a brief? The Minister did not write that which is printed on the paper which is now sitting on his knee. Or is it that the rest of them cannot read" We should have had the Prime Minister here. We know that he can read. This is a serious point. I hope that we shall have some explanation from somebody on the Government Bench. I see no reason why we should accept this Amendment and get ourselves into this muddle with no explanation from the Government. [Interruption.] Did the hon. Lady wish to interrupt?

Dame Irene Ward: The hon. Gentleman said there was no reason why we should accept the Amendment. I merely said there is no reason, so why accept it?

Mr. Emrys Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should like your guidance on this matter. Could you tell us whether there is any precedent, under any Government, of an Estimate having been printed with the wrong words? Has this Estimate to be discussed again? Could we be told whether there is any


precedent for this remarkable procedure, and how we are to get out of this difficulty procedurally?

Mr. Speaker: As this is a Supply question I do not know, but much of the matter will be determined if we decide upon this Amendment, which is the first Lords Amendment on the Paper. Mr. Ross is speaking.

Mr. Ross: The hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) stated the case correctly. It is up to the House to decide whether or not to accept this Amendment. I am pointing out that if we accept the Amendment we still have to clear up this muddle of the Estimate having been printed in the wrong form, since I believe we have to deal with a further stage of the Estimates next week. On the other hand, if we decide to reject the Amendment, the Estimates are in the proper form. There is quite a considerable attraction to anyone who has a desire to see the proceedings of the House conducted properly to keep the Government right. [An HON. MEMBER: "Divide."] Whether I divide will be determined by myself and not by a shouted interjection from an hon. Member for whose Parliamentary experience I have little regard.
It may be that there is a simple explanation. My right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) has already given a hint the other day, and again tonight, that the Government have prepared some sort of explanation of what is involved in this matter. Quite apart from the pique of the Minister of Defence because he cannot or does not want to speak, there is still an obligation on the Government to make this explanation to the House. It is a very simple point. I was quite prepared to listen to the right hon. Gentleman. The fact that he cannot give the explanation does not mean that it cannot be given. I want that information.

Commander J. S. Kerans: Sit down and let him get on with it.

Mr. Ross: If the Government will indicate that they are going to give an explanation I will gladly sit down. I suppose the hon. and gallant Member for The Hartlepools (Commander Kerans) is going to speak on behalf of the Government? I do not feel so strongly about

whether the words should be "Navy Board" or "Admiralty Board". I think there is much to be said for the view expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes). At the same time, there is some logic in the view expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), although, with respect, he has not entirely convinced me. I think we should reject the Amendment rather than get the House into a muddle.

Mr. Callaghan: rose—

Hon. Members: Object

Mr. Speaker: These noises seem to indicate that the hon. Gentleman does not have leave to speak again.

11.30 p.m.

Mr. Callaghan: Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The position is that the hon. Member requires leave to speak again. If he is seeking to speak again, he must seek leave.

Mr. Callaghan: I think—[Interruption.]—if the animal noises from hon. Members opposite stop it will be seen that I do not need to ask leave to speak again, because I want to move a Motion. With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I beg to ask leave to move, That the debate be now adjourned.
This is an entirely new Motion and does not need the leave of the House.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot accept that. We are still on the main Question.

Mr. Callaghan: With respect, Mr. Speaker, on page 408 of Erskine May, it is said :
In the midst of the debate upon a question any Member may move 'That this House do now adjourn', or 'That the debate be now adjourned', not by way of amendment to the original question, but as a distinct question, which interrupts and supersedes that already under consideration.

Mr. Speaker: Yes, but that supposes that the hon. Member seeking to move it has not spoken to the Question. The difficulty is that the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), who is seeking to move that Motion, has already spoken to the main Question.

Mr. Denis Howell: I beg to move, That the debate be now adjourned.
I do so for the reasons which were about to be stated by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan). It is quite clear to one who knows absolutely nothing about the Navy that the Government have got us into a situation in which, in terms of military strategy, the Navy would be disgusted to find itself. My hon. Friend asked questions in respect of the form of the Estimates and Votes to come before the House on Monday. They were very pertinent questions which those of us listening very passively to the main debate found extremely relevant.
The Minister of Defence first indicated that he might like to speak, but after the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline Burghs (Dr. A. Thompson) he stayed in his place and indicated that he did not wish to speak. At that stage for the first time he changed his mind. There was a further intervention from this side of the House and the Minister of Defence said that he would address the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) at this stage, for pertinent reasons for which he alone is responsible and for which he would not expect us to accept responsibility, but which were certainly appreciated by some of us—the discourtesies of the Minister in the defence debate—refused leave. As several of my hon. Friends have pointed out, this does not mean that questions ought to be begged.
It is quite clear that the Minister of Defence cannot speak and the other Minister present representing the Admiralty refuses to speak. The Leader of the House, in the midst of this discussion, leaves the Chamber. [Interruption.] The Leader of the House is not technically in the Chamber. I regard this as a procedural matter. I do not personally regard the matter which has confronted the House at this late stage as primarily one which affects the Admiralty or the Navy Board but as a House of Commons procedural matter.

We are therefore entitled to House of Commons answers. It has been conclusively proved by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East that the debate which is to take place on Monday will be seriously hampered. We want to know how the Government intend to rectify the matter and what Amendments they intend to put down for the Estimates, I how they intend to get us out of the impasse in which they have landed us.

If we could be given guidance it would not be necessary to proceed with the Motion, That the debate be now adjourned. I move it because we have listened to over an hour of questions and have been seeking answers to very important questions about the inaccuracy of the Estimates before the House. If we cannot have this matter straightened out and if the House cannot be satisfied on this important question, we must adjourn the debate. One of the traditional functions of the House is to consider Supply and to alleviate grievances. The Treasury Bench show no sign of being either able or willing to deal with these important constitutional matters and we are therefore justified in the moving the adjournment of the debate so that when the matter is again brought before the House we may have a Government statement about the impasse into which the House has been put.

Mr. Speaker: The Question is, "That the debate—

Mr. Thorneycroft: rose—

Mr. Callahan: On a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: No point of order arises. I am putting the Question in pursuance of Standing Order No. 28 (1).

Question put, That the debate be now adjourned:—

The House divided: Ayes 39, Noes 117.

Division No. 39.]
AYES
[11.37 p.m.


Benn, Anthony Wedgwood
Hannan, William
Manuel, Archie


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Harper, Joseph
Mellish, R. J.


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Hilton, A. V.
Mendelson, J. J.


Callaghan, James
Houghton, Douglas
Milne, Edward


Dalyell, Tam
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Mitchison, G. R.


Davies Harold (Leek)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Morris, Charles (Openshaw)


Duffy, A. E. P. (Colne Valley)
Kelley, Richard
Mulley, Frederick


Evans, Albert
King, Dr. Horace
O'Malley, B. K.


Grey, Charles
Lawson, George
Redhead, E. C.




Robertson, John (Paisley)
Stonehouse, John
Wigg, George


Ron, William
Swingler, Stephen
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Silkin, John
Taverne, D.



Skeffington, Arthur
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Stewart, Michael (Fulham)
Whitlock, William
Mr. Ifor Davies and Dr. Broughton.




NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Hiley, Joseph
Pounder, Rafton


Allason, James
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Prior, J. M. L.


Anderson, D. C.
Hirst, Geoffrey
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Quintin
Rees-Davies, W. R. (Isle of Thanet)


Atkins, Humphrey
Holland, Philip
Renton, Rt. Hon. David


Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)
Hollingworth, John
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Batsford, Brian
Hooson, H. E.
Scott-Hopkins, James


Bidgood, John C.
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.
Shaw, M.


Biffen, John
Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives)
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)


Bishop, Sir Patrick
Hughes, Young, Michael
Stainton, Keith


Bourne-Arton, A.
Iremonger, T. L.
Stevens, Geoffrey


Box, Donald
Joseph, Rt. Hon. Sir Keith
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Braine, Bernard
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Summers, Sir Spencer


Bryan, Paul
Kershaw, Anthony
Tapsell, peter


Channon, H. P. G.
Kimball, Marcus
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Kirk, Peter
Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)


Cleaver, Leonard
Kitson, Timothy
Taylor, Sir William (Bradford, N.)


Cooke, Robert
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Teeling, Sir William


Curran, Charles
Litchfield, Capt. John
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. peter


Dalkeith, Earl of
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Dance, James
Loveys, Walter H.
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon


Digby, Simon Wingfield
MacArthur, Ian
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Duncan, Sir James
McLaren, Martin
Vane, W. M. F.


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute &amp; N. Ayrs.)
Vickers, Miss Joan


Elliott, R.W.(Newc'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Maddan, Martin
Wade, Donald


Farr John
Marshall, Sir Douglas
Walder, David


Finlay, Graeme
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Walker, Peter


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Wall, Patrick


Glover, Sir Douglas
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Ward, Dame Irene


Goodhew, Victor
Mills, Stratton
Webster, David


Grant-Ferris, R.
Miscampbell, Norman
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Green, Alan
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Grosvenor, Lord Robert
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Wise, A. R.


Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Panned, Norman (Kirkdale)
Worsley, Marcus


Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Partridge, E.



Hay, John
Peel, John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hendry, Forbes
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Mr. Rees and Mr. Pym.

Original Question again proposed.

11.45 p.m.

Mr. R. J. Mellish: I should like to ask the Civil Lord whether he will now reply to the questions put from the Opposition Front Bench. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Defence was to have answered what he regarded as important questions on Vote 3 of the Navy Estimates put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) but was unable to get the leave of the House to do so. It has since been pointed out that the Civil Lord is more than adequate to deal with the questions.
I appreciate the Civil Lord's ability to deal with matters such as this. He was inhibited for many years by the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Transport, no matter what he did or how hard he tried. He now has a chance

to make a great name for himself, although the trouble is that he may again be inhibited from doing so by another lord and master. However, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will now answer the simple question : what happens to Vote 3 of the Navy Estimates now that the name has been changed?

The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. John Hay): A number of hon. Members have come into the Chamber who have, perhaps, been a little confused about what exactly has been happening, and I can tell them. A number of questions were put to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence—particularly those relating to the Navy Estimates put by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South East (Mr. Callaghan). My right hon. Friend, as is courteous and customary, sought to reply, but owing to the behaviour—the churlish behaviour—of the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg)—and


the hon. Member now appears, as far as I can see, to be in charge of the Opposition—he was prevented from answering the questions
My right hon. Friend took what I think to be the perfectly correct view, namely, that as long as the House refused him leave to speak again, as long as one hon. Member refused him that leave, he should not seek to put up some other Minister to reply—[HON. MEMBERS : "Oh."] I think that is perfectly correct, because he is not only in charge of the debate on this particular Motion but is also the Minister presenting the Estimates that were questioned.
I will now try to explain the point. All that the House is really concerned about on the Estimates is the first part of any Vote. Hon. Members will see that the text in page 24 falls into two parts. At the beginning is an Estimate of the sums required for the year ending 31st March, 1965
…for the salaries, wages and expenses of the Navy Department Headquarters
—and then the sum is set out. The second part gives the
Sub-heads under which this Vote will be accounted for and additional detail.
All the House is concerned with is what, to use the technical expression, comes within the ambit of the Vote, and that is what is shown in Part I.
On the Motion, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the Amendment, all we have done is to propose that we accept that in the Bill the words "Navy Board" should be changed to "Admiralty Board". We are not changing the name of the Navy Department Headquarters. If Part I of the Estimate were shown as the amount required for salaries, wages and expenses of the Navy Board, then, perhaps, there might be a point ; but all we are concerned with on the Amendment is the name of the Board, whether it should be "Navy" or "Admiralty". The point, therefore, is completely irrelevant. That is the explanation.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison: rose—

Mr. Hay: I know that the hon. and learned Member for Kettering has been waiting impatiently for some time to address the House, but I ask him to allow me to finish. All I say in con

clusion is that, so far as the Amendment passed by another place is concerned, it raises the simple issue of what we call this Board. The Estimate is another matter entirely, which may, of course, be looked at on another occasion.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison: This is a real point, and it is not a matter for verbal quibbles. The Government have anticipated the outcome that their description "Navy Board" would go through. They did not expect a revolt in another place, and they did not expect that they would have to succumb to it. The result is that they have hopelessly misdescribed large parts of their Navy Estimates.
I refer to page 24 of the Estimates to which the Civil Lord turned. First, there is a general Vote. Next, there are Subheads under which the Vote will be accounted for. The first one is the Minister of Defence, whom we see sitting on the Front Bench. The First Lord is not with us. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State is not with us. The Civil Lord is with us. After we have disposed of them, what do we find?—
Other members of the Navy Board.
Who are they? If the hon. Gentleman wishes to correct me—

Mr. Hay: I thought I had explained it, but obviously I had not made it clear to the hon. and learned Gentleman. Part II of what appears on page 24 is purely explanatory. It is not the operative part of the Vote which Parliament will be asked to pass. What matters for that purpose is only Part which is the Estimate of the amount required for the expenses of the Navy Department Headquarters. Frankly, we could put almost anything we liked in the explanatory part. That is not what the House is concerned with ; it is concerned only with what appears in Part I.

Mr. Mitchison: This is the most singular explanation of Government arrogance I have ever heard. We are presented with what are now misleading Estimates about a body which does not exist. We are told, "That is all right : you can vote their salaries. They do not exist, but you can deal with it all right because there is a general head above which would cover anything, however inaccurate".
This really is a serious point. These Estimates are put before the House in order to cover well known matters of the highest consequence to the House, and they are at present inaccurate.

Mr. Hay: indicated dissent.

Mr. Mitchison: The Civil Lord shakes his head. Will he tell me who are the other members of the Navy Board? He cannot do so, obviously, because there are not any. These Estimates as a whole are grossly misleading in name. I agree that it is only a question of name, but that is what we have been arguing about. What I want to know is this. Are the Government entitled to miscall—if I may so put it—the people with whose Estimates we shall have to deal? Are they entitled to describe things by the wrong name and, when charged with it—the reason is perfectly clear, that they anticipated a decision of the House—say that it is all right and we can find on a misleading page one general sentence which will cover anything, even payments to non-existent people? This is not the way to treat a matter of this sort. If the Government want to put their Estimates right, let them do it and tell us how they will do it, but it is an arrogant insult to the House as a whole to say, "I shall not do anything about it because there are some general words which cover all our mistakes". We are at least entitled to have Estimates put before us in a clear and correct form and not Estimates which refer to bodies that the Government supposed would exist and which they now wish no longer to exist. We must be told what the Estimates are about and told in this—

Sir Spencer Summers: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you help those of us who are interested in the subject of Estimates and serve on the Select Committee on Estimates? Is it in order to debate the wording of the Estimates on the Motion that is now before the House?

Mr. Speaker: As far as it is relevant to that Motion. At present, it is.

Mr. Mitchison: I do not want to trespass upon the hon. Member's patience, but this is a point. At the last moment the Government, having mistaken their

own attitude and the course which events would take, have put before us Estimates which contain a misdescription. One could call it a misprint if one liked. If it were a misprint, it would undoubtedly be corrected. This is the kind of document in which one does not tolerate misprints.
Surely, we should hear from the Government what they propose to do to correct the error, which is entirely of their own making. In form, the error is simply a misdescription, but it occurs again and again through the Navy Estimates. It appears towards the end of the statement on page 52. Over and over again the Navy Board is continued, and the Estimates start by saying that the Secretary of State for Defence is Chairman of the Navy Board. He may be at the moment, but he will not be if the Amendment is agreed to.
The Government should not come here with this cheerful adherence to the letter of a somewhat misleading text and say, "We can get away with it. We can think of a sophisticated argument which would be sufficient to meet the misdescription in the Estimates." They should admit frankly that they anticipated the decision of the House ; they anticipated their own point of view about it. They supposed that they had enough strength of mind and firmness of purpose to stand up to another place. They have now appeared this evening before us and told us that they cannot do it ; they are too weak, too confused. The result of this, if they go on with it and if the House accepts their attitude of mind, will be, as I have just pointed out, a number of misleading statements in the Estimates.
What we want to hear from the Government is quite simple. What will they do to put this misdescription right or do they still insist that it is the duty of the Government to stick to what they have had printed so far, however misleading, however insulting, however arrogant it may be? This is Government arrogance and it is just about time that on this small point they put the matter right and cleared themselves. They should not be so happy about it. I hope that they will say to one another, "Let us for once put on a little bit of a white sheet and behave properly to the House in this matter."

Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn: I should like, first, to congratulate and thank the Minister of Defence for clearing up one doubt which I have often had : that is, why emblazoned on the Admiralty pennant is the symbol of a fouled anchor. This has often puzzled us. Now, at last, we know. It also somewhat confirms the view which many of us have had that if one yields to another place, one is liable to get into difficulties.
We are discussing three bodies. The first is the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty. Everybody agrees that in whatever form the Bill is passed, the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty will disappear. The Civil Lord is referred to in italics in the Estimate because he himself will go, and although we are naturally sorry about it from a personal point of view, from the way in which he has discharged his office we can understand why he should be regarded as redundant.
The second group body is the Navy Board, to which we are voting a great deal of money ; but it will never come into being. The Navy Board is mentioned in the Estimates which have already passed this House, but it will never come into existence.
12 m.
The third body is the Board of Admiralty, which will come into existence but will have no money because we have not voted any for it.
So we have those three bodies. The dying Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty will hand back their commissions to Her Majesty, the Navy Board will have a lot of money but no existence, and the Board of Admiralty will be there maintaining the tradition back to Henry VIII but with no money.
Since the hon. Gentleman said that the Navy Department Headquarters had nothing to do with the Navy Board, are we even sure that if we accept the Amendments the Board of Admiralty will control the Navy Department Headquarters? Where is the authority for that? It is not even mentioned. The result is that it looks as if when the Bill comes into force we shall have a position of unparalleled confusion.
The Minister of Defence thinks he frightens the Russians. But what does

he do to as? I heard him the other night expressing himself with passion and patriotic fervour. But he gives way to some old admirals. The right hon. Gentleman, whatever his forces may be, is himself not a credible political figure.
This concerns you, Mr. Speaker. As the guardian of this House, it is your responsibility to see that the House is given the facts and documents and correct Motions on which we can reach decisions. This raises a major point of Parliamentary procedure as to whether the House late at night, after midnight, ought to be asked to pass Amendments the consequence of which simply cannot be anticipated. I realise that to give a Ruling on a matter of this kind might well require consideration, but perhaps at the meeting of the House tomorrow you could give your advice on this. As to precedents, it seems to me that there could never have been an example where, the House having voted money to a body specified in the Estimates, the Government have then abolished the body before the Estimates came into effect.
We have had a lot of fun this evening. Even hon. Gentlemen opposite have had to laugh at the confusion into which they have got themselves. They may be even more confused by the fact that an hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite said that he was prepared to go into the Lobby whichever way the right hon. Gentleman said he should. We have had a lot of entertainment, but we are dealing with one of the Services, sometimes called the silent Service, though it if as not been silent tonight because many of its voices have been heard. It is the Senior Service. We are dealing with the future of the Royal Navy. The fact that the Government have allowed this confusion to develop in this way calls for some further explanation, or else on their own Motion the Government should look at this again and come back and tell us whether the confusion to which we have drawn attention will, as we suspect, seriously prevent the Estimates from coming into effect.

Mr. Harold Davies: In all seriousness, I believe that this is by no means slight matter. We are told that this is merely a change of name. The House of Commons and the British


people are told rather arrogantly that they can call it what they like and it does not matter. This is a completely new doctrine which the House of Commons is having presented to it. No Estimates Committee, whatever its calibre, would accept a report such as this knowing that later on changes of name would be made.
A change of name will entail extra cost, perhaps some hundreds of pounds to meet such expenses as changing notepaper headings, for instance. There may have to be a Supplementary Estimate. Hon. Members should not allow this to go through tonight. The rights of the House must be protected.
I therefore appeal to you, Mr. Speaker, to help us. Someone should give the House an answer. It would be better to adjourn so that the Government could consider an answer satisfactory to both sides and to the people, the taxpayers, whose rights we have to protect. I hope that you can give the House some guidance to protect it from the Executive.

Mr. John Stonehouse: We are in a most extraordinary position, and I hope that the Leader of the House will intervene to indicate that he agrees that we should adjourn so that we may, perhaps, have an explanation tomorrow to clear up the confusion. The Civil Lord claimed that the matter was quite clear since, according to page 24 of the Navy Estimates, the amount the House had voted was for the Navy Department Headquarters.

Mr. Hay: Not "had voted" but "would be asked in due course to vote". We have not yet had the Vote on Account.

Mr. Stonehouse: We shall be in an extraordinary position. A substantial amount is involved—£10,657,000. Page 53 deals with "Senior Staff (Navy Department Headquarters)". These are the people who will spend the money and they will be under the instructions of what is called on page 52 the "Navy Board". Page 52 also states,
The Secretary of State for Defence is Chairman of the Navy Board.

According to the Lords Amendment, however, the Navy Board will not exist. Under whose instructions, therefore, will the senior staff referred to in page 53 be acting?
This great confusion shows the state that the Conservative Party and the Government are in and why we should have a General Election soon. Obviously the Government cannot even handle a simple item like this. They are in a state of confusion and in their own best interests as well as tho of the House, the Leader of the House should intervene to agree to adjourning the debate so that the Ministers responsible may have an opportunity for reflection and to come up with intelligent answers.

Original Question put and agreed to.

Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to.

Mr. Callaghan: On a point of order. Would you be good enough, Mr. Speaker, to consider the form in which the Navy Estimates have been presented, particularly Vote 3, which is headed "Navy Department Headquarters"? We would like your Ruling as to whether these Estimates will be in order if they are passed in this form, or whether a reprint will be needed. We have heard the explanation of the Civil Lord—if that is what he still is, and I think he is—but the fact remains that there is no such body as the Navy Department. There is an Admiralty Board and there may well be an Admiralty Department Headquarters, but, so far as I can see, there is nothing in the Bill which refers to the Navy Department. This was always called the Admiralty Headquarters in previous Votes. It would be for the convenience of the House if we were to have your Ruling, at your convenience, as to whether the form of words in which this Vote is presented is accurate.

Mr. Speaker: I will consider what the hon. Member has said. I am not quite certain what the implications are for me at the moment, but I will consider it and do what I deem to be right.

Orders of the Day — MEDICAL APPEAL TRIBUNALS

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. MacArthur.]

12.12 a.m.

Mr. Stephen Swingler: The subject I wish to raise tonight arises out of an exchange at Question Time on 17th February and concerns the composition of medical appeal tribunals. I wish to raise a complaint about their composition which can be dealt with quite simply by a regulation of the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance which would improve the system of justice under which claims for disablement benefits are dealt with.
Unfortunately, in some parts of the country these tribunals play an important part in the life of the community, those parts of the country where, because of the nature of the production, such as coal mining, many workers sustain industrial injuries or contract diseases at work and where controversy about the system of insurance and the level of social benefits and compensation for disease or disablement and the machinery for dealing with claims is widespread and considerable.
These medical appeal tribunals are staffed by expert consultants and have an extremely difficult and important job to do. No layman would underestimate the problems with which they are faced in assessing the degrees of disablement which determine the amount of social benefit which a man may get under our law. Certainly nobody from mining areas would underestimate the sense of frustration which exists among many citizens about the assessments and the present system. I am not suggesting that that is mainly due to the composition of tribunals or to the nature of the machinery. It is principally due to the state of the law.
In passing, I would tell the Parliamentary Secretary that until we have achieved recognition about the industrial cause of chronic bronchitis and emphysema and other things so frequently associated with pneumoconiosis, it will be impossible for those whom we represent to recognise as just the assessments which they are given and the social benefits

they are granted. That is why those of us who represent mining areas so persistently agitate that these diseases, which, as a matter of common sense, are caused by men working in such occupations as coal mining and the production of steel, should be recognised in our legislation.
As explained by the Parliamentary Secretary on. 17th February, it is a rule that those who serve on pneumoconiosis panels and on medical boards to which claims are made by mineworkers who believe that they have contracted an industrial disease may not also serve on the tribunals to which men can appeal against assessments. Unfortunately, as revealed by the Parliamentary Secretary on 17th February, it is not a rule that a person may not serve twice or on more occasions on an appeal tribunal considering the same kind of claim from the same kind of citizen.
I draw attention to the case of Mr. Reginald Smith, of 20, Monument Road, Talke Pitts, in North Staffordshire. He is a constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies), but I have taken his case up because I raised the matter in 1956. In December 1961, Mr. Smith lodged an appeal against an assessment of 50 per cent. disablement for pneumoconiosis to a mining appeal tribunal. This was considered by the tribunal in March 1962. Mr. Smith was unable to attend the tribunal in person, but it considered X-ray photographs, hospital case notes and other material, including some evidence to which Mr. Smith subsequently objected. The tribunal rejected his appeal against the medical board's assessment.
Later, in August, 1963, Mr. Smith lodged a second appeal to a medical appeal tribunal. In this case he claimed to appeal against the medical board's giving him an assessment of 60 per cent. disablement for life on account of pneumoconiosis from working in the mines. He was notified that that would be dealt with in February of this year. When he was notified of the composition of the tribunal he discovered that one of the members was the very same consultant who had sat on the previous tribunal, in March, 1962, which had rejected his appeal against the 50 per cent. assessment.
Mr. Smith lodged an objection to this consultant being a member of the


tribunal, not because he objected to him personally but because he considered—I think rightly—that his appeal should go before a fresh set of judges, since it was the same kind of appeal, about the same kind of claim on account of disablement from pneumoconiosis that had been dealt with in 1962. But that objection of Mr. Smith's was rejected by the clerk of the tribunal and the Minister.
Last month Mr. Smith, with the leave of the tribunal, withdrew his appeal, partly on account of a clarification given by the clerk to the tribunal about the nature of his assessment, but also, as he told me in a letter that I received this week, on account of the fact that his objection was brushed aside, and he felt very strongly indeed that it was unfair that he should have to face the same judge who had rejected his previous appeal.
Within the narrow limits of the terms of reference that are given to these tribunals and that operate in the case of assessments for disablement, it is not only important that justice should be done as far as possible but that it should be seen to be done. I put it to the Parliamentary Secretary that when a man feels that he has been given too low an assessment on account of his disablement and, therefore, makes an appeal to one of these tribunals, which may be the final authority to decide the amount of social benefit and compensation that he gets, and finds that he has to go before the same judge who had previously rejected the claim, with very similar elements within it, justice is not seen to be done. The only other appeal open to the man is to a commissioner, but then only on points of law.
I am therefore asking for a very simple reform of the rules which already rightly debar members of pneumoconiosis panels and medical boards from sitting on the tribunal. I am asking the Parliamentary Secretary to stipulate that where a claim is made and an appeal is lodged a second time by the claimant against a disablement assessment, the man should appear before a differently composed board.

12.22 a.m.

Mr. Harold Davies: It is not my intention to delay the house long. The case has been clearly and admir

ably put by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler). I am aware of the case and both my hon. Friend and I know the gentleman concerned. Indeed, we know many others in the North Staffordshire district who suffer from this terrible complaint of pneumoconiosis which exaggerates bronchitis, emphysema and other types of disease that can be contracted in such areas.
Without reiterating the whole of the argument, I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether he feels that a man would be justified in feeling that justice appeared not to have been done when he makes a fresh appeal and finds that the second assessment is made by the same consultants who decided the first assessment. My remarks must by no means be taken as a castigation of the medical people concerned. But if a miner suffering from pneumoconiosis or a potter suffering from silicosis makes a fresh appeal and is confronted by the same judges who decided the case in the first instance, he is bound to feel uneasy.
When I heard about this case, I wholeheartedly supported my hon. Friend. I support this objection by Mr. Reginald Smith. I hope the Minister will give an assurance that a new formula will be found whereby miners and others suffering from this type of industrial disease may feel that they are at least getting a square deal.

12.25 a.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance (Lieut.-Commander S. L. C. Maydon): Medical appeal tribunals under the Industrial Injuries Act consist of a legal chairman and two medical members. The medical members are consultants of high standing appointed after consultation with the medical faculty of the appropriate university in the Provinces, or in London with the Royal College of Physicians or Royal College of Surgeons. These medical members are selected from small panels at each tribunal centre and are normally asked to serve in rotation.
More than one appeal arising out of some case may go before a tribunal. For instance, when there are provisional assessments for disablement, appeals may be made from each assessment. Or, as in the case referred to by the hon.


Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler) the claimant may appeal against a provisional assessment of his disablement and subsequently put in another and different appeal against a final assessment for life.
The question arises whether a medical member should sit on a tribunal if he had been concerned with the case in any way before. Certain aspects of this question are dealt with in the regulations governing the procedure of the tribunals. It is laid down that a person shall not act as a member of such a tribunal in any appeal, firstly if he has taken any part in the case as an assessor or, secondly, as a practitioner who has regularly attended the claimant, or thirdly, if he has been a member of a medical hoard, or fourthly, if any question arising out of the case has been referred to him for examination and report, or lastly, if he has been concerned in the case as a witness. These rules were made in 1948 after consultation with the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council.
A member is not debarred by any statutory provision from acting as a member of a medical appeal tribunal in considering a case in which he has taken part in a decision of a tribunal on a previous appeal, reference or application arising from the same claim. This is what the hon. Member is complaining about. In this case in December, 1961, Mr. Smith appealed against a provisional assessment. Again in September last year he appealed against a final assessment—two appeals on quite separate issues in consequence. The fact that one medical member of the appeal tribunal was the same is not forbidden by the regulations.

Mr. Swingler: I cannot accept that there are two separate issues. They are the same issue. The provisional and final assessment both had to do with assessing the degree of disablement from which the man suffers. A member of the tribunal who confirmed the view on a case, in fact put his name to that view in judging the provisional assessment, is

in the view, of the citizen already committed and prejudiced when he considers the second case. That is the whole point.

Lieut.-Commander Maydon: I cannot accept that the mere fact that the tribunal member has been a member of a tribunal it deciding a previous assessment prejudices him in the eyes of the claimant. Nevertheless, we shall look at this matter again. It is a question, as I think the hon. Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies) said, of not only letting justice be done but of letting it be seen to be done.
We shall look at the matter again in the light of what has been said in this debate and also in the light of the Commissioner's observations on another case with some similarities which was raised recently at Question Time by the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Snow).
Practical difficulties might arise. For instance, it might be necessary to transfer a case from the tribunal of one area where the claimant lives if, for example, the only dermatologist on the tribunal panel has already considered the claimant's case on an earlier appeal. Some claimant's might not think it desirable to have to go elsewhere to put their appeal before a tribunal.
Nevertheless, we will look into the whole matter again, consulting, if necessary, the Council on Tribunals, which is an independent body set up in 1959 to consider matters concerning the constitution and 'working of tribunals. The questions under consideration would seem to fall within that Council's province.

Mr. Harold Davies: On behalf of—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir William Anstruther-Gray): The hon. Member may speak again only with the leave of the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes to One o'clock.